Rating: 
Summary: Don't expect Silence of the Lambs caliber...
Review: A few thoughts...1) I read the book (which was not the best) and thankfully the movie doesn't follow the book too closely (especially the ending). 2) Julianne Moore took on a big task of taking over for Jodie Foster - it took me until half way through the movie to stop comparing the two. Julianne did an okay job of portraying Clarice. 3) The movie was slow in parts...just like the book. Especially the scenes in Europe. All in all, it's a decent movie...not the best but not the worst I have seen. There are some really good parts and great special effects. Anthony Hopkins really helps bring the movie to an average level.
Rating: 
Summary: Not disappointed
Review: Part of the problem of making this movie must have been that it was a sequel to Silence of the Lambs. In spite of this, if found the movie very enjoyable. I happen to have seen it in Florence which may have added to the terror. I agree with other reviewers that it is a disappointment after having read the book. In the book, Starling and Lecter effectively fall in love and abscond together. I admit, though, that it would have been difficult to squeeze this into the confines of a standard length film. The major disappointment I found, though, was that the movie abandons the driving force of the book: namely that Lecter is now on the loose. The book is a catharsis of sorts in that now there are no holds barred and Lecter basicly runs wild in a manner that previously we could only imagine (SOTL, Red Dragon). I felt that it was a mistake to have such a brief renuion between Lecter and the forces of the FBI. However, as a standalone film, Hannibal is immensely enjoyable and still manages to captivate an audience.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent sequel, if you can call it one
Review: A great movie, a definite Must Have for everyone's DVD collection. Do not believe the idiots who gave this movie one star!
Rating:
Summary: GOOD, BUT NOT GREAT
Review: For years people have been waiting for the sequel to one of the greatest thrillers of all time, "Silence of the Lambs". That wish came true a couple of months ago, and the sad truth is that "Hannibal" does not live up to the expectations of many people.
"Silence of the lambs" was a clever thriller which challenged people to actually use their brains as they would see the disturbing story unfold minute by minute. "Hannibal", on the other hand, is more of a slasher film instead of a clever thriller. The whole movie revolves around Hannibal Lecture killing others and really doesn't have all of the elements a good suspense movie has.
Don't get me wrong, I did like the movie, but it was not as good as I hoped it would be. Much more could've been done to make this move a great thriller. Anthony Hopkins has still got it as beeing one of the most creepiest villians ever to be created in the world of fiction. This is a good movie, just not great.
It is worth!y of viewing at least once, but you should probably rent this one first, and keep in mind that you are going to be very dissapointed if you're expecting "Hannibal" to be as good as "Silence of the Lambs".
Rating: 
Summary: In a word - botched.
Review: There's a lot to be said for "Hannibal". The only word that summarizes this movie well is "botched". Setting aside the problems of typical sequelitis, this movie suffers exceptionally from the burdens of such enormous expectations and the breadth of its foundations. To begin with, the source book "Hannibal" by Harris has many advantages not available to the film: the luxury of extravagant description and elaboration; superior manipulation of time, mood and tension; more intricate character development; and utter lack of input from thrice-damned Hollywood test audiences. These tools aren't available to the film - we never see the fully developed contrast between Verger and Lecter. We are never exposed to the depth of Lecter's brilliance or the heights of his evil. Neither is Verger's twisted being allowed to fester in our minds as an offence to all that is decent. As a result, the mood in the film suffers horribly, and what I feel is the crucial plot to "Hannibal" is lost. The directing is also horrendous. I find it hard to believe that the same man who directed "Alien", "Blade Runner" and "Gladiator" could have so mishandled a movie. He relies on gore instead of suspense, surprise instead of tension, and complexity instead of intrigue. There is no attempt to establish the proper moods at any point in the film. The movie is stilted, trite, and lacking in the elements that make a really GOOD thriller. Thanks for nothing, Ridley. Just as a side note: I am a pathologist. I handle human tissue on a regular basis. I realize it doesn't come up that often in movies, but do you suppose it is too much to ask that you folks do your homework, and try to come up with a fake brain that LOOKS like brain? This movie does have a few bright points: Moore, Hopkins and Oldman. While the movie is generally poorly executed, I find myself taking comfort in the superb acting from the cast. Moore proved herself equal to the task of playing Clarice Starling in Foster's shadow. She managed to convey the hopeless frustration of a woman disillusioned by that she held dear with amazing virtuosity. To wax at all on Hopkins' or Oldman's performance is to damn them with faint praise - they were simply magnificent. All in all, this is a movie that should never have been made. There was simply no way to accomodate the inspirational material in a manner to do it justice AND live up to the expectations of a sequel to "Silence". Add to that the ridiculous oversight of Hollywood backers ("We don't LIKE this ending. Change it." Those maggots probably wanted to change the ending of "Casablanca" too) and you have a movie that never fails to disappoint.
Rating:
Summary: Great movie on it's own
Review: Apparently I get the impression that if you slam a movie with a bad review, exactly what the vast majority of people here have done with "Hannibal", that it makes you sound like an expert critique of movies. The sad part is that half of you spell Lecter wrong. The next time you review a movie maybe you should actually try to sound like you know what you're talking about. Now... As much as "Silence" kept most of the gore in the mind or off screen, a lot of you don't realize that Hannibal Lecter is a KILLER. I wouldn't have been surprised if he had done more than just serve a man's brain as dinner. I knew and definitely anticipated when I first saw this movie that it wasn't going to just beat around the bush with how gruesome his character was, and I'm glad they didn't. I'm also glad that they didn't go into any detail concerning Hannibal's childhood as Harris did in the novel. Putting that on screen would have confused us on whether we should sympathize with this cannibal and his harsh past. The character works much better as the antihero he is. I don't think in any way that Hannibal lost his menace from "Silence" at all. It would have been silly for him to repeatedly pop out of dark corners and eat people. Some might argue that he does this in the movie, but if you look closely you can see that he never sneaks up on the audience itself so to speak. The fact is that his character is a calm and calculating killer, not a teenager in a ghost mask brandishing a knife. What makes him scary is the fact that he might be kissing your hand at an opera one minute and biting your face off the next. I think it's great that Anthony Hopkins decided to do this movie regardless of the terrible reviews which were definitely inevitable. As a sequel, it's hard to even consider it one because the storyline is so far removed from where "Silence" left off. I think people merely came to the conclusion that if Foster, Demme and Tally didn't want a part of it that it must be a bad movie. Not the case. I enjoyed the movie, I enjoyed Ridley Scott's direction which didn't turn the movie into a full-out slasher flick but instead gave it a tone worthy of "Hannibal the cannibal", I enjoyed the story, and I also believe that if the movie had gone the direction of the book in the end I wouldn't have minded. But, in order to have done that the movie would have to have been lengthened by at least two hours. I have absolutely no problem with the screenplay's ending though, it fits the characters well. Bottom Line: Hannibal is a good movie, after watching it I said to myself, "I want this movie on DVD", and a lot of people seem to feel the same way regardless of all the uninformed reviews from you people who gave it one star. Your not fooling the people who UNDERSTOOD this movie and enjoyed it for what it was.
Rating:
Summary: Hannibal Gets Revenge
Review: When Silence of the Lambs was released in '91 and then went on to win Best Picture, we all knew a sequel was coming (we just didn't know it would take Thomas Harris 7 years to write it). And finally Hannibal is here, a film which takes us into Lecter's life after he has escaped from prison. He obviously has lived a life of exquisite taste, enjoying beautiful Florence, Italy. But back home Clarice gets into trouble and one of Lecter's victim's (the only one left alive) concocts a plan to capture Lecter. But also Clarice is framed by a fellow officer, but Hannibal really shows him when he gets his just desserts!!! Great performances by Hopkins and Moore, once you get into the film you don't even miss Jodie Foster! The direction by Ridley Scott is fantastic, as good as Gladiator with some fast cut-scenes and the soundtrack is a fabulous Hans Zimmer encore!
Rating:
Summary: Extremely underrated film
Review: As I was looking through the reviews on Hannibal, I was shocked. I can't believe that so many people were disappointed with the film. I also noticed that the majority of the fans don't even realize that The Silence of the Lambs was not the first of the Hannibal Lecter series. It was in Manhunter that Doctor Lecter made his first unforgettable appearance. The film was in theaters briefly in 1986 if I recall correctly. However, Brian Cox portrayed Lecter instead of the great Anthony Hopkins. The latter plays the character much better, in my opinion. In addition, in case anyone is interested, Ted Tally is currently working on the script for a prequel; actually, a remake of Manhunter. It will be entitled Red Dragon, which is the name of the book by Thomas Harris that Manhunter was based on. It is scheduled to begin filming in September of this year. Hopkins has not yet decided whether or not he will take on the role of Lecter once again due to the relatively small part that Lecter has in Red Dragon; he will decide when the script is finished. If Hopkins does indeed return, Jude Law will supposedly play the young Lecter (before he was caught) instead of trying to take 20 years off Hopkins' face with CGI effects. On a more promising note, after Red Dragon is released, the script for the fourth chapter in the Hannibal Lecter series will be written. Fortunately, Hopkins has agreed ahead of time to star as Doctor Lecter. He recently stated that he would be more than willing to portray Lecter for 10 more films, but that "by then Hannibal would be too old and his teeth would be falling out from eating so much liver." Heh. Anyway, I'm sorry if I've written too much. I hope this has been informative to some of the Hannibal Lecter fans around the world. If not, feel free to e-mail me with questions and I'll see what I can find out.
Rating: 
Summary: Trash
Review: Anthony Hopkins must have wanted the paycheck because this film absolutely stinks.It has the plot and story of a grade z mad slasher film.Don't waste your time or money,as I did.The worst film of 2001 thus far.
Rating:
Summary: Not The Silence Of The Lambs! Better!!
Review: This movie is no silence of the lambs its better I walked into the theater expecting a real dull movie but no Hannibal has everything you want in a movie action drama suspenss horror. I believe Anthony Hokins in this movie gave his all his best performance yet.
| 
