Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: The edge is missing - but not horrible.
Review: The pyschological edge of Hannibal Lecter has all but disappeared in this sequel. What once was a character that was almost purely a mental figure has now been transformed into an escape artist with almost super-human ability. That being said, this movie is not bad - but it really has lost it's edge.

Julianne Moore is not Jodie Foster - but she does a good job in my opinion. Foster was a very tough act to follow.

I would still recommend this movie - but it is no blockbuster.

Rating:
Summary: A far and farcical cry from the novel or original movie!
Review: There's a special hall of fame where special movies go that are able to stand the test of time and still mesmerize audiences with their wit, their charm, and whatever else happens to make them up. "The Silence of the Lambs" is one such movie, taking us on a startling journey of psychological loneliness and despair, dug up in the subconscious of an FBI trainee by a former psychiatrist now under lock and key for his cannibalistic actions. This was a movie that took us to new levels, and made us use our imaginations, keeping us enthralled throughout.

"Hannibal" stands on the outside of this hall, looking in, holding within its plot an intense array of aspirations for the high regard with which its predecessor was held. No such luck for this movie, though. The elements, along with a key actress, from the first film are left out, and will be sorely missed by those in the mood for the in-depth penetration into Hannibal's brain, which made the first movie so intelligent. This movie takes a different approach, heavily emphasizing style over substance, running almost two hours too long, and leaving nothing to the imagination in terms of Lecter's latest brutal crimes. I hope all the religious fanatics reading this review will excuse my language (like many will be reading this), but "Hannibal" raises so many expectations that it becomes the [worst] movie of 2001.

The story picks up tens years later after Hannibal's escape from his prison in Tennessee, leaving special agent Clarice Starling with one chilling phone call. Ten years later, Clarice Starling is a full agent, with the highest number of shot-and-killed criminals on her record. Soon, she finds herself paying a visit to Mason Verger, a wealthy sinister man with a severely scarred face. His story is one of that brings the premise of the movie's "action" to light: he was acquainted with Dr. Lecter many years earlier, and one night, while under the influence of an unknown substance, Lecter convinced him to cut his face off and feed it to his dogs. This explains, with rather graphic detail, the reason for his mutilation, which sends Clarice on the hunt again for the tormentor of her mind. Meanwhile, Lecter is in Florence, trying to make a splash as a museum curator, until a cop discovers his identity and throws his freedom into the balance. And rounding it all out is Verger, whose intentions are those of hostile revenge. What will ensue in the last hour and a half of this seemingly neverending movie are a combination of unneeded dialogue from Lecter, gore which is passed off as artsy, and a long, boring drone of plot that never quickens the heartbeat or keeps us enthralled at all.

Suffice it to say, the film had so much going for it, and promotional ads make it seem like even though it's not going to be "The Silence of the Lambs II," it does not aspire to be, either. But the movie itself is something totally different, a force to be reckoned with, so to speak. What we must reckon with is the fact that Lecter is no longer a prisoner, which was the whole basis for the first movie. When he was in captivity, he was able to ignore his confines and always come across as witty, smart, and intelligent. Here, with his newfound freedom, it loses the luster it once had, and all we are left with is the witty dialogue of his expansive mind, which seems to hardly fill the halls of Florence much less the storyline of the movie. We are never really captivated by Lecter because he is on the loose, and the mystery of his life and crimes is diminished.

The absence of Jodie Foster is not really a negative of the movie, which is in no way speaking badly of her performance in "Lambs." The mere reason for my saying this is because the new addition, Julianna Moore, is left with little to build on. This film's Clarice is more astute, more provoking, and more forceful, which is exactly what ruins it for her. The entire first half of the movie is nothing but Clarice searching through archives in the FBI storage basement, looking at computer screens, making calls all over the world to find out the possible whereabouts of the now-famed killer. Perhaps the most ludicrous and unaffecting incident in the entire movie revolves around Clarice listening to the taped conversations she carried on with Lecter, which are reread with Julianna Moore taking over the part of Clarice. It is not only totally idiotic and ruinous, it makes the movie look stupid.

The running time is nothing short of a waste, making room for unneccessary subplots and twists that really add nothing to the story. Most of these scenes are the filmmakers attempts to make Hannibal's life and crime still appear as art on film, incorporating opera music and sweeping visual surroundings into the sequences to try and give it the feel of the scene from "Lambs" where Hannibal escapes from his cage. This scene was so astute for the way in which the large room was not the focus, but rather the action going on inside the cage. There seems to be a vast amount of space in which the characters dwell, which lessens the impact of the film, which also loses the less-commercial feel that "Lambs" achieved with its tight facial shots, constantly moving camera, which always underlined a sense of unease and tension. "Hannibal" has no tension, has no feeling, and ultimately has no impact once the final stages take place.

The intense amount of gore is a major put-off as well, lessening the amount of brain power required for the audience to use as well as forcing some to take early exits to the restroom. There is so much blood, so much gore, and so much mass bodily violence that it comes as a relief when Hannibal is not onscreen. This is perhaps the defining contrast between the two films: "Lambs" was superior enough to make us use our imaginations when Hannibal discussed his crimes with Clarice. Now, Clarice hears of his crimes from others affected by his crimes, and director Ridley Scott uses flashbacks and fast-moving shots to show us those crimes, old and new, essentially leaving nothing to the imagination of its viewers. And what about that last part with the festive dinner entree? UGH!

What is left to be desired is the acting, which never really makes us believe in the characters. Anthony Hopkins is one of two actors from the original to return (the other is the black security guard Barney, who shows up for a total of ten minutes selling off Lecter merchandise), and his character never reaches the ability and intelligence that he possessed in the first film. We end up wishing he would run away and never come back. Julianna Moore does what she can with her role, which is as relentlessly boring as her job in the film. Gary Oldman portrays the character of Mason Verger, who plays a somewhat intrical role, but the audience may become confused as to whether or not we should feel sympathy for him (come on, if he invited Anthony Hopkins over for some light S&M, would you pity him?).

This is not a movie for the light of stomach, nor is it a film for those who are interested in a strong and intelligent story. I cannot even go so far as to say that it is a film for die-hard aficionades of "Lambs," because I happen to be one of them, and I found myself sinking lower and lower in my seat, just wanting it to end already. "Hannibal" does succeed in achieving one thing, though: it is able to go from the most anticipated movie of the year to the year's biggest disappointment. And that may or may not be an easy task.

Rating:
Summary: Too overpowering
Review: This is an extremely well done thriller. The acting is superb. The story is fresh. Well, as fresh as a sequel can be. My only problem with the film is that they really pushed the edge with the gore in this movie. You definitely do not want your children to see this film. Some of my adult friends have had trouble with the scenes in this movie and I am sure children would have nightmares over it. I really liked the movie, but I wish they would have held back a bit.

Rating:
Summary: 2 1/2 Hannibal sort of delivers, but not really.
Review: Ok, the film wasn't that bad. Gary Oldman was brilliant as Mason Verger and the make up was both gross and spectacular. The film's cinematography, well it seems that Ridley Scott is still "Fast/Dizzy" camera effect happy since Gladiator. Anthony Hopkins loses some charm now that he's free from his jail cell, its just sorta weird I dunno. Juliann Moore did the best she could with a character who's integrity and dignity are stripped in every part of the movie, its not her fault her character is a complete Dunce who is nothing but the puppet of Mr. Lecture. The one thing that took away ALOT of stars for me. was the STUPIDEST ENDING EVER since The Blair Witch Project. Boy was that a stinker, the book ending was WAY WAY WAY better then this crap. I was totally dissapointed by it, and I can in no way forgive such a result for the characters. Had it been better, the movie would have gotten a better review from me. Yes at times it's entertaining, and contains loads of black comedy, with Mr. Lecture acting so cool and childlike just before he rips someones intestines out. Its not that gross, but beware the shock end scene for those who are squemish. It could have been better, once again Clerice Sterling loses everything you love about her from the first film, she's taken from strong and confident to nothing but the play thing of a whole buncha men who have it out for her.

Rating:
Summary: You have got to be kidding me...
Review: This movie is definitely NOT at all a good book to movie transfer. There were SO many changes from the book, not to mention the fact that there was a new director with a completely different style which butchers the original feel of Hannibal's character. "Hannibal" did not ring true as an addition to this series. "Red Dragon," the story which precedes "Silence of the Lambs" was awesome compared to this. The ending of Hannibal was just re-writen to please the American audiences who can't seem to deal with the outcome of the novel, I suspect. you have got to be kidding me...

Rating:
Summary: Anthony Hopkins is delicious and Hannibal's not bad either
Review: For many movie fans, including myself it's been a long 10 years since our last Hannibal Lecter fix. I can honestly say after many rumors and heresay, the wait for the Dr.'s return was worth it. Anthony Hopkins comes back to haunt our nightmare's in the sequel (well not really) to THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS in HANNIBAL. What a Valentine's date movie this turned out to be. Admitedly I am a big Hopkins fan. He could make the reading of the phone book scary. In HANNIBAL he outdoes himself. The humor of Dr. Lecter (yes, he does have a sense of humor) comes through in Hopkins delievery of some delicious one liners. It is a bit camp, but that makes it more fun. Now, to the serious movie review:

I loved HANNIBAL. Not everyone will. Yes, there is violence and gore to the extreme but not any more than you would get in a dose of one of the many less prestigious 'slasher' films. The performances are excellent all the way around. Julianne Moore is on board this time as Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster bailed out - the original Clarice from "Lambs"), Ridley Scott is the director (Jonathan Demme said 'no thank you' - the director from "Lambs") but not to worry. Julianne does a wonderful performance and takes Clarice to places she probably never dreamed of. It would have been nice to have Jodie back but after seeing Julianne, the detractors have fallen silent. Ridley Scott's direction seems to come from a higher power. One could imagine he's had the entire movie playing in his head since the got the nod yes to direct. Other fabulous performances belong to Gary Oldman (uncredited) as the sadistic pedophile Mason Verger, Lecter's fourth victim. I won't tell you more than that, it would spoil the surprise. I did have a problem with Mason's character. He was more demented in Thomas Harris' novel. He almost pleads for sympathy (and may get some) in the movie. True, the movie did follow the book to a point but this is the one place it fell a bit short. The same can be said for Ray Liotta's character Paul Krendler a rival FBI agent from the Justice Department. He too was more menacing in the book and was a stronger nemesis to Starling. Also, in the book we know why he's after her. Only through one line in the movie do we get the answer. It would have been nice to explore that angle a bit also. Still, Liotta did a fine job. I actually may be one of the few who enjoyed the book and its ending, as far out as it was. I had to read the book twice before it all sunk in. Still, the ending of the movie leaves you to wonder. One of the most impressive performances, besides Hopkins, is that of Giancarlo Giannini who played Det. Rinaldo Pazzi. His performance was flawless especially when opposite Lecter. The two played a cat and mouse game that was interesting, humorus, and terrifying. Now, back to Sir Anthony. Playing Lecter with a sense of purpose - to survive - and yet obsessed with Clarice, if that's the correct psychological term, to perfection, Hopkins seemed to glide across the screen with little effort. We as the movie audience totally buy him as Lecter. Even the inhuman things he's capable of and does, we seem to dismiss and forgive him for. We like him anyway. In HANNIBAL, we finally get to see just a spark of his compassionate side. He is a cannibal in love. The kiss was to die for. But you didn't hear it from me. If you are just a bit squeamish you may be watching parts of the movie through your hands but it's all in fun, really. There are some serious frights and jumps but there are just as much chuckles and nervous giggles. Would I recommend HANNIBAL? Absolutely. But not if you're under 17 even though I know you've seen worse. Go see the movie and enjoy the roller coaster ride we call the home of HANNIBAL.

Rating:
Summary: Hannibal Will Make You Eat Your Ten Dollars
Review: Immensely disappointing sequel to The Silence of the Lambs and Manhunter shows some promise in the beginning but starts dragging it's feet and can never quite pick them up. That's not to say it's a terrible movie, just confused. It doesn't seem to know weather it wants to be a horror film, following the conventional format better suited for the Jason's and Freddy's of the world, or transend it's gere as Jonathan Demme did so beautifully with Silence. You see, it's slow moving enough to have the feel of an art house flick but gruesome enough to have Clive Barker running for the exit.

Julianne Moore fills in the role vacated by Jodie Foster and does a nice job but being my favorite actress (check out Boogie Nights), I expected more from her. She's paired opposite Hopkins as Hannibal whose the protagonist of this film. At least Ridley Scott knew than nothing he could do would make us root against our favorite cannibal. Hopkins is good as well, but still a long way from his Oscar-worthy performance ten years ago.

The plot involves one of the only two surviors of Hannibal before he was apprehended (Gary Oldman in the only true standout performance), who wants retribution. Naturally, he breeds wild bore, training them to feed on his arch nemisis while he's still alive. Standing in his way is Clarice, who after forming an unholy alliance with Hannibal is intent on bringing him in and thus saving his life. The problem is that we never feel that he's in any real danger. After all, how could he? He's Hannibal Lector and with all the talk swirling about another sequel we know they're not going to kill this cash cow until he's churned out a few more.

But if I had to nail down the film's biggest flaw, I'd have to say that it's the fact that without the aspect of confinment Hannibal is no longer forced to rely on his intellect, instead falling back on macabre acts of violence.

All in all, it wasn't so bad it was worthy of all those bolting for the exit (and there were quite a few), but what a disappointment.

Rating:
Summary: Way overrated
Review: I was very happy to see that they were making a sequel to the original. A movie that good needed a sequel, but the movie they came up with was very disappointing. I feel asleep almost 15 minutes into the movie because of the boredom. The whole movie was lead up to the big ending, which turned out to be not so big. The ending scene made my stomach turn, but I could have gotten the same effect by turning on the discovery channel and watching an operation. All in all I do not think that this movie was a good scene that had 2 hours of lead in.

Rating:
Summary: HANNIBLE: Anthony Hopkins at his best
Review: I saw the movie the day it came out in theatres, and it was everything I expected plus some. Though I would have rather had Jodie Foster play SA Starling, Julianne Moore was an EXCELLENT replacement to play the more mature Starling. Now, if Hopkins had declined, I would have NEVER gone to see the movie, it just wouldn't be Hannible Lectar with out him. The violent scenes were very graphic, but few and far between made for the perfect amount of gore. It was very fun to watch Hannible work his magic, and they kept with the part of he never gets over anxious, "his heart rate never went above 85."

Rating:
Summary: Polished, but doomed by the book it was based upon
Review: This film can't help but draw comparisons to Silence of the Lambs, and Hannibal falls short if you do so, as many films would. It would have been difficult to craft a great film from the book Hannibal, and despite altering the ending slightly for the better, Ridley Scott, David Mamet, and Steven Zaillian have simply polished brass and tried to pass it off as gold. The film manages to shock the audience with sensational gore but fails to haunt. Unlike the first film, when Lecter has to think his way out of captivity, one never feels Lecter is in danger in Hannibal. Neither the buffoons at the FBI, nor Mason Verger (an unrecognizable Gary Oldman), or detective Pazzi ever truly seem to be a match for Lecter, who roams around the film with superhuman impunity. He doesn't even bother to disguise himself, despite being on the FBI Top Ten most wanted list. Also, the interplay between Clarice Starling and Lecter doesn't advance any more in this film. Their relationship is as we left them in Silence of the Lambs, two interesting personalities who find each other to be the only people more interesting than themselves.

Hannibal feels more like an epilogue to Silence of the Lambs than a film unto itself. No fault of Hopkins, Moore, or Scott, who are all professionals. It's still a lot of fun to follow Hopkins, the world's most sophisticated and witty cannibal. Moore plays a grim, single-minded Starling about as well as can be expected, and Scott conveys the beauty of Florence with his usual technical precision. It is a tribute to how interesting a creation is Hannibal Lecter that such a thin film still manages to tickle the audience from time to time.