Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: Well, Anthony Hopkins is good...
Review: And that's about it. This much-anticipated follow-up to 1991's "Silence Of The Lambs" falls far short of its predecessor...the book on which it is based is quite good, but certainly not the equal of "Lambs", and this movie is much inferior to that inferior book.

I don't know if it's the directing or the script that's off, but almost all the characters are flat and stereotypical, and where "The Silence Of The Lambs" had both a superb story and a slew of tremendous actors, this movie has neither. Well, that may be too harsh, there are some really good actors here, and I suppose they do what they can with the material, but it is almost impossible to really care about these characters.
"Hannibal" is like the antithesis of the clever, understated and original "Lambs"...graphic violence, gory details and a touch of camp has replaced subtlety, sophistication and, well, acting.
The scenes with the hideously disfigured Mason Verger - an understandably uncredited Gary Oldman - are particularly bad, and the omission of Mason's sister (a major character in the book) is inexplicable and makes it hard for that part of the plot to function at all.
Ridley Scott is one of my least favorite directors, and this is almost like watching a slightly better "Friday the 13th" starring Anthony Hopkins and Julianne Moore. No wonder that Jodie Foster turned this movie down.

Rating:
Summary: Well Hello Clarice!
Review: I think this is the best of the Hannibal Lecter trilogy. I also think Julianne Moore did much better as Clarice than Jodie Foster. Jodie Did good, but I liked Julianne better as Clarice. Ridley Scott did a terrific job and I like this one because Hannibal is out and about and not locked up. Anthony Hopkins is wonderful as Hannibal and as far as the dvd, it is worth buying because it has extras you only dream of.

Rating:
Summary: Hollywood Movie Making at Its Commercial Worst
Review: Silence of the Lambs was an exceptionally good movie...scary, funny, original, characters to care about, even touching. What a letdown with Hannibal. What a mess. The movie was all over the place, with calculated yuck moments for the fanciers of evisceration, hogs and chafing dishes. There was no chemistry between Clarice and Hannibal, no tension or anticipation, no wit, no characters worth anyone's interest (all just my opinion, of course). I remember reading Hopkins' answer when asked why he took the role. "Why not," he said, "After all, it's just a movie." That's the kind of condescension this movie earns.

It seems such a classic example of Hollywood's calculated commercialism, where the grossness keeps the target audience happy and the grosses keep the producers happy.

But the waste. Ridley Scott is the guy who did Blade Runner and Thelma and Louise. Julianne Moore is a top-of-the-line actress (Vanya on 42nd Street, The Big Lebowski). And Ray Liotta, so good in Goodfellas. David Mamet must have breathed a sigh of relief when they pitched his script and reassigned it to another writer. It would be easy to believe that Gary Oldman didn't want an acting credit.

So much talent. So little good product. The money must have been persuasive.

Rating:
Summary: Not the same cannibal...
Review: This is a decent movie, but not even in the same universe as the original. It feels very removed from the storyline. The style is different, as to be expected with a change to Ridley Scott at the healm, but it goes beyond that. This movie is more gore driven than psychologically unnerving. I did enjoy the film, but not as much as I would have wished. Worth seeing, but only a must have for true film buffs like myself.

Rating:
Summary: A Good Sequel That Will Stand On It's On
Review: First of all let me say that the reviewers have been way too harsh with this movie. I suspect that they are disappointed that it is not a duplicate of Silence of the Lambs. And if that is what you're expecting, you will be disappointed too. But who would want a Xerox of the old movie when you can go see this edgy, well-done next chapter that takes you beyond the jail cell to the very home of Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lector?

Now I must say that Hannibal, while just as suspenseful as "Silence" is definitely a little less serious. But the slightly irreverent quality of the movie works well, especially to ease you past its more graphic parts. Just when your skepticism is about to surface, just when your "gross meter" has almost reached its limit, the script writers throw in some brilliant black comedy and you find yourself laughing amid the mayhem. It's the writer's way of saying - It's over the top, we know it, sit back and enjoy it.

And enjoy it you do. The background scenery is lavish, the script well polished and the performances skillfully executed. Anthony Hopkins is, as always, brilliant. He glides with cat-like grace through his scenes, wrapped in Lector-esque calm while the body count climbs. He is at once lethal and appealing. Hopkins still manages to play most of his character through the eyes and facial expressions. The effect is so creepy and terrifying you'll find yourself glancing over your shoulder - just in case. Julianna Moore plays Clarice Starling. Ten years after "Silence", her character is written and played with more maturity, more confidence and a more "I'm in control and in your face" kind of energy. Moore does a wonderful job. And, in my opinion, this older Starling is more appealing than the one we saw in "Silence".

That said, let me point out here that there are two weak points to this movie - the characters Mason Verger (played by Gary Oldman) and Paul Krendler (played by Ray Liota). The problem, I think, is not the acting (which is in fact well done), but that not enough time is given to developing their characters. In Harris's book "Hannibal" both men are mean, unscrupulous and vengeful characters. In other words, completely unlikable and extremely hateable. In the book, when both men eventually fall into Lectors hands, you've come to dislike them so completely, that there is a feeling of "Good.They got what they deserved!". In other words, the book manages to create a reluctant sympathy for Lector's motives. The movie, however, never develops the characters of Mason and Krendler enough for the audience to really hate them. As a result the empathy for Lector is lost. In the book Lector is a monster with a tortured soul and a certain twisted sense of justice. In the movie, he's simply a monster.

As to the ending - while it is completely different from the book - I liked it. In the book there is a definite sense of closure. The movie, of course, leaves it open - ensuring that sometime in the future we will once again meet Hannibal Lector. With the ending of "Hannibal" the quasi-romantic relationship between Lector and Clarice is finally pulled out of the shadows, dusted off, and hung out for every one to see. With his eyes boring into hers, his expression both serious and self-mocking, Lector asks "Would you ever say to me, `Stop. If you love me stop.'?" A declaration of love? Hardly. Rather a titillation -Does he mean it? Or is he simply playing with her head? Though there is an implication that Lector would cause himself harm before he would hurt Starling, there is really no clear-cut answer. The writers wisely leave that mystery for the next Hannibal Lector banquet.

Rating:
Summary: A great movie....the best in the seris
Review: The Hannibal lecter seris is so good, i dont know why it isnt considered one of the greatest movies of all time. "Silence of the lambs" and "Red Dragon" are great movies, in there own way. But in those Lecter is a side character. In this one he takes center stage. Now the police are tracing him down. "Hannibal is so great, every one should see it. With an ending that will shock you (no really watch the ending then you will know what i meen).