Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: Great sequal!!
Review: THIS MOVIE IN NO WAY SURPASSES (SILENCE) BUT IT STILL STANDS OUT AS A GREAT FILM AND SEQUAL.ANTHONY HOPKINS RULES AS HANNIBAL LECTER.JULIANNE MOORE DOES A GRAT CLARICE BUT IN NO WAY COMPARES TO JODIE.THIS IS WORTH BUYING DON'T WAIT BUY THIS MOVIE NOW.

Rating:
Summary: If you want the REAL story of Lecter, read the book
Review: I was very dissappointed in this movie. I mean, it was well done, but totally butchers the incredible book. It is very different and leaves the ending wide open, where in the book we are shocked as to the way it ends, which is very different than this movie mind you. I just think that if you want to really keep up on the Lecter Trillogy, then you should read the book to help you. This movie will mess everything up. Just rent it, dont buy it.

Rating:
Summary: Disappointed
Review: The omission of character development (Hannibal, the Verger family, Starling) and changes in story line were extremely disappointing. Audio CD was much more of a psychostory. The movie stepped down several notches to a grizzly scary story. The visuals were excellent and appropriately dark, Anthony Hopkins reflected the best of his dark side. This was not even close to the story Harris wrote. Hollywood is taking some extreme artistic license in the translation. A disappointment.

Rating:
Summary: Ladies & Gentlemen, I introduce to you a MASTERPIECE...
Review: Common people do-the-film a grave injustice by comparing it to 'The Silence of the Lambs'.

The truth is: 'Hannibal' does not even compare to the original film, 'The Silence of the Lambs' (which I will refer to as 'TSL').

'Hannibal' is more than a film, it is a masterpiece in it's own category for many reasons.

1. Location & Historical Content

'Hannibal' is filmed in two of the most beautiful places in the world: Florence, Italy and Washington, DC.
The scenes containing these cities involve strong historic & realistic references to government, philosphy, and religion; including Dante Alghieri's inferno, Pierre della Vigna, and Judas Iscariot.

2. Widescreen, Photography & Screenplay

The widescreen aspect ratio (16:9) facilitates the storyline and screenplay of 'Hannibal' by allowing the audience to see a broad variety of thematic references used for foreshadowing, contextual reference, and environmental enhancement. Although widescreen is the industry standard in Hollywood film productions, Widescreen enables 'Hannibal' to uniquely express itself to the audience through indiscreet and non-obvious ways, the director (Ridley Scott) and the screenplay writer's (David Mamet) goals were/are to provide the audience of 'Hannibal' with a subconscious-dependent non-linear storyline facilitated by the audiences imagination and interaction with the actors and events-----simply brilliant...
The scenes in Italy are breathtaking, and the scenes in Washington, DC are presented in a way that no other film has ever before (as a beautiful city 'feeding' the fuel to the fire of Hannibal & Clarice together).

3. Plot & Storyline (No Spoilers)

The storyline of 'Hannibal' is 95% independent of TSL (I can't say 100%, because of the obvious necessity of know some facts regaurding Dr. Hannibal Lector). The plot of 'Hannibal' is simply amazing, the entire storyline from beginning-to-end is a very large analogical reference to Dante's philosophy (Hannibal's victims in Dante's Inferno), Judas Iscariot (Detective Pazzi), Clarice (burning heart).

4. The main characters & their real-life counterparts

Although the actress who originally played FBI Agent-Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) was replaced by Julianne Moore, the acting and resentation was not replaced, in fact, it was ENHANCED.
Anthony Hopkins's award-winning portrayl of Dr. Hannibal (The Cannibal) Lector was also ENHANCED due to the increased maturity of Hopkins role as Hannibal and the seriousness of this film's purpose to 'follow-up' from the original (TSL).
Becuase of the tonality, structure, and (slight British) accent of Mr. Hopkins voice, the portrayl (of a doctor who is a cannibal) is scary with precise clarity.

5. Style, Class, & Hans Zimmer

'Hannibal' is bred with class, introduced through several stylistic approaches; as we have covered:

1. Location & Historical Content,
2. Widescreen, Photography & Screenplay,
3. Plot & Storyline
4. The main characters & their real-life counterparts

but one CRITICAL element we have not discussed is the musical score.

Fundamental to the style and success of a Film Masterpiece is the musical score.

The introduction of Hans Zimmer to the musical score of 'Hannibal' is THE MOST important aspect of this film.

The musical score represents EVERY part of Ridley Scott and David Mamet's goals for sub-conscious audience interaction.
It emits the feel of each and every scene in 'Hannibal' with painful PRECISION, style, and EMOTION.
The tracks of this musical score & their integration into the screenplay, plot, style & feel of 'Hannibal' EPITOMIZE the art of filmmaking in musical integration, screenplay co-ordination, and classy & stylistic approach.

The final track (Track 12) of the Score to 'Hannibal' (Vide Cor Meum) is THE MOST beautiful piece of music I have ever heard, weeping, I watched and listened as the Opera concluded in silence...

'Hannibal' is more than a film, it is a masterpiece in it's own category becuase it alone epitomizes the art of filmmaking on every front...

RATING: 5.1 Stars (MASTERPIECE)

Rating:
Summary: A rare movie that's better than the book it's based on
Review: First things first: I loathed the novel "Hannibal." Absolutely loathed it. I have certainly read worse books, but I have never read a book that was more repellent, disgusting, and extravagantly, pointlessly gory. I wanted to disinfect myself after reading it.

So, naturally, I approached the movie with a certain amount of trepidation. The only reason I even gave it a chance instead of avoiding it altogether was that Ridley Scott helmed it. Scott has an uncanny ability to make mediocre or even crummy material watchable, even enjoyable.

And so he has done with "Hannibal." He took that abortion of a book and crafted a fine movie out of it, wisely jettisoning some of the the book's more disgusting and/or offensive scenes and elements. Admittedly, with a less top-notch cast, he may not have been able to do so; there are plenty of weak, pointless, or just plain silly moments that are saved by the actor(s).

Julianne Moore has the unenviable task of reprising a role that won Jodie Foster her second Oscar, and which has become indelibly attached to Foster's name -- yet Moore shrewdly does not just do a Jodie impression; she imbues Clarice with her own mixture of toughness and fragility, often speaking with a slightly clenched jaw and an air of, "I do not suffer fools gladly, but heaven help me, fools are all I see." Clarice is forthright and honest, a straight arrow, but one honestly believes she is as good as she is described, instead of finding her irksome and pooh-poohing the idea that anybody could be such a good person.

Anthony Hopkins does ham it up a bit as Lecter, but one could hardly blame him; a lesser actor would've hammed it up a lot more. There is an impish quality to Lecter, but he's still as bloodthirsty and ruthless as ever; he's not made into a poor, misunderstood fellow (one of the aforementioned elements in the novel that Scott wisely deleted was the backstory in which Hannibal, as a boy, lost his beloved little sister to Nazi brutality). He is a truly soulless sociopath, who, despite his love of music and culture and all things tasteful, is still a monster in the skin of a man.

And Clarice knows this. She respects Lecter, but she does not admire him, and finds him abhorrent. The sheer disgust and contempt on her face during their showdown is palpable -- she returns none of Lecter's clearly besotted feelings. The part where he leans in to kiss her (or rip out her tongue?) could easily have been played for erotic value, but Scott, thankfully, refused.

Then we come to Gary Oldman, covered in very convincing makeup that renders his voice nasal and muffled, as hideously disfigured (by his own hand, no less), filthy-rich and mad-for-revenge Mason Verger. He, like Hopkins, does ham it up a bit, and he certainly doesn't shy away from adding yet more repulsive characteristics to the already skin-crawlingly repulsive Verger, such as lip-smacking noises and a bizarrely jocular attitude toward nearly everything. One does not feel a single ounce of pity or sympathy for Verger -- he's that loathsome. Far more loathsome than Lecter.

The weak link in the acting chain is Ray Liotta, who, like Anthony Heald as Chilton in Jonathan Demme's "Silence of the Lambs," plays his sleazy, loathsome, leering character, Paul Krendler, too broadly. In fact, the character is pretty much a rehash of Chilton, only this time we actually get to see the lout get his just desserts, so to speak.

Rating:
Summary: Appalling
Review: The massive popularity of this repugnant film has revealed to me that society is deeply sick and there is no hope for it. That the average human being I pass on the street is in reality, underneath the flimsy cloak of civility, a closet sadist who takes pleasure in seeing others being mutilated. For all our belief that we are more progressive than our ancestors this is exposed to be a lie. The crowd sitting in the auditorium enjoying watching a man being disemboweled is no better than a crowd 500 years ago eagerly watching someone being burned at the stake, or hung-drawn-and-quartered.

Rating:
Summary: Awesome Movie!!!!!!
Review: This movie was GREAT!! It had terrific suspense and it kept me on the edge of my seat. Anthony Hopkins plays a AWESOME Hannibal Lector. I recomend this movie to anyone who likes murder and suspense.

Rating:
Summary: Cliff Notes--and bad ones at that
Review: Watching Hannibal after reading the book is exactly like rereading Cliff notes and realizing that the writers left out important insights and completely misrepresented several key points.

I won't argue with the talent of Julianne Moore, though I think Jodie Foster's Clarice far surperior. And Anthony Hopkins is good as Lecter in a role that wasn't written for much depth.

I have to agree that this film sometimes is more comedic than suspenseful or horrifying--the dinner scene with Lecter and Starling being the main highlight. That wasn't disturbing or gruesome. It was funny. I'm not really sure what could have been changed to make it the turning point that it was in the novel, but it came off as particularly black humor.

My main issue with this adaptation is the butchering of the ending. I saw the movie first, then read the book, then watched the movie again and now the ending seems horrible and wrong. The conclusion of the book was perhaps the most disturbing thing about it, that Clarice had finally fallen into Lecter's final trap--and that it was natural and even right--; that and her line "See if I sound like Oliver Twist when I ask for more!"

I wish the ending that was filmed for Thomas Harris was released with some edition of the DVD. The alternative ending in the water is better than the one released in the theaters.

Rating:
Summary: Hannibal
Review: Hannibal was great! It's a great psychological, suspense thriller that just chilling and all out, a great movie. Anthony Hopkins returns as Dr. Hannibal Lechter, 10 years after SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. Also starring in this is Julianne Moore as Clarice Starling and Ray Liotta and Gary Oldman.

It's been 10 years since Dr Lechter escaped from custody and his case has been all but forgotten except by 2 people, Clarice Starling and Mason Verger (Oldman), the only survivor of Hannibal Lechter. Horribly disfigured and scarred thanks to Lechter, Verger has been waiting 10 years to exact revenge on Dr Lechter and now the time is finally right because Verger finds him. Agent Starling then reopens the case in hope that she'll find him first and be abto find him in time before Verger gets a hold of him.

Hannibal isn't nearly as psychologically scary as SILENCE OF THE LAMBS was but I will say that it has a lot more gore in it. Here's 2 perfect examples, the end scenes and the library. Hopkins really puts up another quality performance as Dr Lechter. There are 2 down sides to this movie. Julianne Moore replaces Jody Foster as Clarice Starling. It would have been nice to have the original, but Moore does a very good job. The other thing is that the ending might disappoint a few people. Personally, I thought it was a good ending and it added a bit a fear to it.

Either way it goes, make sure you watch SILENCE OF THE LAMBS first because there are so many references to it that if you don't see it, than HANNIBAL won't seem as good to you. I recommend this one to anyone who's into the series and to anyone who likes suspense thrillers because this one will do that for you. Plus, Hopkins says the classic line "Hello Clarice". Check out HANNIBAL!

Rating:
Summary: 1 part book, 10 parts water
Review: "Hannibal" by Thomas Harris is a rich, dark, pseudo-Gothic exposition of one of the most infamous characters in modern fiction, Hannibal Lecter. Surrounded by the strange characters one would expect to inhabit his extraordinary, yet psychotic life; the brilliant FBI agent Clarice Starling, feminine and vulnerable, yet tough, strong-willed and obsessed with executing the letter of the law; meat magnate Mason Verger, physically and mentally deformed and utterly consumed by revenge upon the man who left him in such a state; his steroid-abusing gym-junkie sister Margot; the quiet, enigmatic Barney; Florencian detective Rinaldo Pazzi, who dreams of glory and fortune when he stumbles upon Lecter's new alias... the list goes on. Harris moves his doomed characters around his macabre stage as in an epic modern opera. It meshes subtle elements of literature with psychology, history, philosophy, even fine dining, while maintaining an aura of impending doom within the world it inhabits.

As for the movie, well, it's little more than standard Hollywood sequel material, cashing in on the legacy of its predecessor instead of attempting to be a faithful adaptation. When I learnt that Ridley Scott was to direct the film adaptation, I was intrigued by how the director of such films as Alien, Aliens and Blade Runner would translate Harris' bleak universe onto the screen. When I heard that Foster turned down a reprise of her role, alarm bells started to ring. But I was ready to give Julianne Moore a chance. What a disappointment. Moore, an acceptable enough supporting actor, seems out of her depth in such an integral lead role, and adds little to the fragility-tinged stoicism Foster wrung successfully out of the character. Hopkins is the best thing about this movie, but he's clearly cruising. Oldman could have made the complex and thoroughly warped villian Mason Verger chillingly memorable, such as his excellent roles in "Dracula" and "Leon The Professional", but he's hamstrung in a character stripped down to little more than its bare skeleton (not only literally) by the screenplay. But the characterisations aren't the only thing watered down by the film. The most criminally disappointing aspect of this adaptation is the complete overhaul of the book's ending. The fact that it jokingly leaves open the possibility of a sequel, the last thing on the minds of readers who have just put the book down, demonstrates the extent to which the film has made one of the more perverse and unusual works of fiction in modern years more mainstream for the sake of popularity and box-office success. The infamous Krendler scene seems to have been included merely for shock value and the "water-cooler" market. By that stage, however, the screenwriters had completely departed from the book and were making it up as they went along. And I had become too thoroughly disillusioned to really care. 1 extra star for beautiful Florence.