Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: You must admit, it was a lot of fun...
Review: First off, one must approach Hannibal recognizing that he/she is seeing a sequel wholly different from its predecessor. Anthony Hopkins has said, and I think this sums up the difference quite nicely, that Hannibal is "more tongue-in-cheek and more outrageous." Gone are the intense, close-up filled dialogue sequences, the murky and dark realistic backgrounds, the stoic faces and edgy silences that had set the mood of fear so effectively in the first film. This one is almost burlesque in its extravagant look- lush colors, rich interiors, so beautiful that the film is often more stunning than chilling. Hopkins takes center stage and is utterly compelling, and Julianne Moore, who is without a doubt one of the best actresses working today, delivers what I feel is a wonderfully accurate performance, and she does so with a lot of integrity. No, the performance is not as juicy as Jodie's, but this is because the ROLE, like the movie, is not as juicy. The layers of naivete and vulnerability that made Clarice such an interesting character in the first film have been appropriately shed during ten years of what must have been violent, hardening FBI work. To be sure, Hannibal is not the towering achievement in psychological terror that Silence was. I did not find this movie scary, largely because it has dropped the frightening "second killer" element present in Silence, focusing mainly on the title character who, especially in this film, is at times so charming and humorous that it is hard not to root for him. In the end, this film works because I get a sense that everyone making it KNEW they were not making another Silence. There is a lot of humor and even campy fun in this above average sequel. Yes, there are some queasy parts, but I say that Hannibal ultimately offers two hours of great entertainment.

Rating:
Summary: I CANNOT WAIT TO OWN THIS MOVIE!
Review: I LOVED THIS MOVIE! MY PARENTS TOOK ME TO SEE THE FIRST SILENCE OF THE LAMBS WHEN I WAS SEVEN AND IT SCARED THE HELL OUT OF ME! PLEASE DON'T THINK POORLY OF MY PARENTS HOWEVER..... ANYWAY, THE FIRST WAS HISTORICAL AND VIOLENT AND A HORROR MOVIE MASTERPIECE. HOWEVER, SO WAS SCREAM AND SCREAM 2, YET FOR SCREAM 3 THEY HAD TO TURN THE VIOLENCE WAY DOWN AND EDIT THE BEST TRILOGY OF ALL TIME JUST BECAUSE PARENTS WEREN'T DOING THEIR JOB AND KIDS BEGAN GOING CRAZY IN SCHOOLS. THANK GOD FOR THIS MOVIE. RIDLEY SCOTT SURE IS ONE TO PLEASE THE FANS, BECAUSE HANNIBAL IS A GREAT, VIOLENT, ACTION-PACKED AND OFTEN FUNNY MOVIE THAT SERVES AS THE FOLLOW UP TO ONE OF THE SCARIEST MOVIES EVER MADE! THIS ONE IS REALLY SCARY AND HAS JUST AS MANY SHOCKING REVELATIONS AS THE FIRST. I ACTUALLY ENJOY THIS BETTER BECAUSE, WELL, FOR ONE THING, I'M NOT SEVEN AND FOR ANOTHER, I REALLY LIKE JULIANNE MOORE ALOT MORE THAN JODY FOSTER. I BET SHE IS KICKING HERSELF FOR TURNING DOWN AN AMAZING SEQUEL TO FILM A MOVIE THAT STILL HASN'T BEGUN FILMING YET! THIS IS VERY GOOD AND SMART. SEE IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!

Rating:
Summary: Famished
Review: Is it a watchable film? Depending on your stomach, yes. Well-made? Yes. For those of you who feared any director besides Demme would turn Lecter into Jason Vorhees, relax. You are in Ridley Scott's capable hands. It is certainly of a different fabric to SOTL, but then the same can be said of the respective novels; the dynamic is altogether different.

80% of the book's bare plot is skillfully recreated and the rest is hard to miss, given the pacing which I found more than adequate (sorry, you naysayers).

Strangely, though I was reminded of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST as a previous reviewer offered, I was more directly reminded of KING KONG, its thematic offspring. Like KONG, Lecter is a monster who resembles us and moves among us, but defies our analysis of his behaviour or our attempts to explain him (remember the census taker). In this I agree somewhat with those who disliked the book's provision of a background for the character. Lecter at his best is no victim! We no more need to know his motivations and origins than we need to know exactly how Kong, seemingly alone of his species, sprang from Skull Island. He's just THERE and he just IS. Yet like Kong, for all his ferocity, his devotion to the beauty of his choosing is beyond question and of a purity that many 'nobler' men might fail miserably to emulate. And yes, despite her terror and disgust, he will sacrifice for her. Lecter is unswayingly chivalrous where Clarice is concerned; no matter how she reacts with the plexiglass no longer between them, his true rage is reserved for the 'free-range rude', not her. Which is why despite its tweakings from the book, I found the ending satisfactory and consistent. The screenwriters could only either copy the book's ending or else send Starling, duty-bound, in the exact opposite direction. To their credit she does not simply rally righteously from her drugged state in time to plug Lecter in mid-bite. For what she does do - see the film!

I deliberately avoided spoilers to keep some suspense for the screening, and I was not disappointed. And as a gesture of compensation for those who were, Scott reminds us that Lecter is indeed an unqualifiable monster by taking a somewhat heart-warming scene from the book's middle, faithfully recreating it for his epilogue, then dirtying it down. This is the Lecter we were warned about in SOTL, engaged in sick self-amusement, just because. Of course, Dr Lecter might disagree and say his sole motive was to sway one soul from the perils of poor nutrition.

Rating:
Summary: Yet another masterpiece delivered by Scott
Review: Besides the unrelentless kicking of my chair at the theater, this film was excellent. I was most amazed by the single-light-source filming that Ridley Scott is known so well for. It creates a required mood to accomodate a suspense-filled movie. The direction appropriately accented obvious acting talent which was carried over from the first of these novel-to-movie films. The plot which started a little shaky, ended up being far more unbelievable towards the end. This is the only aspect of the movie that I can legitimately ridicule. All other essential mediums were utilized maximally. I would recommend this film to anyone who is a Ridley Scott fan or a fan of the writer. I also encourage the movie-goers to pick up the novel, because a movie never does its justice.

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing Sequel fails to deliver
Review: A huge fan of the original, I ran to the theatre to view "Hannibal". I was prepared to take the film on its own terms, and not expect another "Silence of the Lambs".

Sadly, despite great acting and ambience, "Hannibal" is a muddled boring failure. Anthony Hopkins, Ray Liotta, and Julianne Moore, are not to be faulted for this mediocre mess, but rather the director and writers bear the blame.

The film's main flaw as I see it, is that the character Hannibal is celebrated instead of reviled. This film forgets that we are dealing with a serial killer! And the character of Clarice Starling is just as much of a mess. I haven't read the books, so I base my judgement solely on the two films. In the first film, we couldn't imagine Clarice having such respect for this sociopath. This film has Clarice fawning over the cannibal, and dreaming of her past glory.

Also, in the first film, the FBI was presented in a wholly positive light. In this film, the organization is corrupt and full of fools. This angle has been played to death in better more entertaining films.

The relentless gore and violence of "Hannibal" really sunk the film for me. I'm a longtime fan of horror, but this film goes too far. The famous dinner table scene was so sickening, it repulsed me for hours afterward.

The Gary Oldman character is completely uninteresting as well.

Ultimately, for all the good acting, "Hannibal" is a colossol flop, and it is sad, because it should have been great.

Rating:
Summary: Come on people!
Review: I have had to sit through so many reviews of this film that bad mouth it and add that it is awful compared to its predecessor. Those people are getting it all wrong! Sure, someone who is expecting to sit down in the theater and watch "Silence of the Lambs Part 2" should leave before the credits begin. What director Ridley Scott, Anthony Hopkins, and the rest of the cast and crew did here was not try to make a replica of the Oscar winning "Silence" but to simply try and make a good flick. And I have to say that they have! They have cut the umbilical cord from the first film and had a little fun. Give them a break! They took a confusing, muddled, way-too-brooding novel (no offense to Mr. Harris, NO ONE could be able to write a satisfying sequel the "Silence" novel) and the film makers produced a fast-paced thriller.

Anyone who hasn't seen Ridley Scott's stylistic achievements in films such as "Blade Runner" or "Gladiator" should have their heads examined. He has taken that muddled novel I mentioned earlier and produced scenes of true tension that were pretty much lacking in the book. The scene of Hannibal and Starling trying to track each other through that crowded mall while communicating through cell phones was suspenseful enough to make me fidget. And it definetely reached the same level of intelligent back-and-forth dialogue between the two leads that gave the first film its chill. I do believe that the film makers should have been brave enough to at least attempt to re-create the ending of the book (Mr. Scott - you could have made it gold) but I can appreciate the EWWWW, GROSS final scene.

Anthony Hopkins is wonderful as Dr. Hannibal Lecter once again. Could anyone else play the role now? And people should leave Julianne Moore alone. She deserves applause just for having the guts to take on a role made legendary by another actress. I believed her as Clarice Starling almost immediately, and the differences between she and Jodie Foster faded away in my mind as the film progressed.

Not the legendary standard of "Silence of the Lambs" but altogether a movie that held my attention and made me glad I paid my eight bucks to see it.

Rating:
Summary: Worth the price of admission, but not a great movie...
Review: Without considering this was the sequel to Silence Of The Lambs, this move was worth the price of admission. Sadly however the characters around Hannibal Lecter act like predictible sheep and act far less intelligent to the point of turning the movie into more of a slasher movie instead of a suspense thriller...

Ok, the good points fall largely on Anthony Hopkins returning as Hannibal Lecter. While the material he had to work with wasn't as good, he puts together an excelent performance we have come to expect from Hopkins in this role. His role alone is worth the price of admission.

A big thumbs down for Ray Liotta character in this picture. Actually I am more disappointed with how the FBI and other law enforcement agency operatives (Pazzi, Krendler, and Starling) are played like they are bumbling idiots on a Keystone Cops set or sex starved power/money hungry morons who would sell their souls for their own personal gain. The interaction between Liotta's character and Agent Starling is ridiculous and detracts from the plot. I think if the relationship between these characters was more professional it would have lent even more mystique to Lecter as a diabolical psychopath. Instead we seem to see Lecter "escape" only because law enforcement are a bunch of moron's bent on self promotion and greed.

A thumb sideways for Julianne Moore as Agent Clarice Starling. Again, her character is inconsistent drifting from a highly intellgent FBI agent to helpless damsel in distress. This probably isn't Moore's fault but I would have preferred to see the more cerebral Jodie Foster who seems to fit this role better and absolutely nailed her performance in SOTL.

In the bizarre catagory would have to be the unique methods Lecter disposes of those pursuing him. If you are at all squemish you may want to leave for the last 15 minutes of the movie. Also, Gary Oldman plays the sole survivor of a full on Lecter attack (or in this case suggestion) as Mason Verger. This character is very interesting but too diabolical. Toward the middle of the movie I was trying to figure out who Starling was trying to capture Verger or Lecter. Oldman does a great job but I wish the character was a bit less hell-bent on revenge and more cerebral (see John Hurt's role as S.R. Hadden in Contact). The plot would have been more suspenseful if Verger's intentions were more hidden and underhanded than they appear in the movie. Indeed Verger would have then appeared more as an ally to the FBI instead of a mentally ill disfigured psychopath who is far less intellegent than Lecter himself.

So overall "Hannibal" is a decent movie for some Friday night entertainment but if you are expecting the same kind of suspense and intellegent character interaction you enjoyed in Silence Of The Lambs" or "Seven" you will be disapointed.

Rating:
Summary: RIDLEY SCOTT HAS A GENIUS PROPENSITY
Review: I mean c'mon-I knew it was enevitable for some people and fans all over would not enjoy this picture. But it is truly art in the making. Ridley has this propensity to his craft to when he is behind the camera, almost anything is possible. Although many scenes i know were edited out of the final theatrical cut were not shown i am really excited for the directors cut. and i thought the gruesome ending with krendlers brain would have been a bit more graphic. I waws also dissapointed a bit because it was not true to the book's original ending, which the movie was probably all for the best because fans would not be able to accept the fact that Clarice and Hannibal ending up together dancing the to the tango in Buenos Aires. Butyou know what that means, with or without another novel by Thomas Harris, there has to be another movie in the Hannibal Lecter saga.

Comparing Hannibal to the past two films (manhunter, Sotl), Hannibal can not exceed the drama presented in silence of the lambs, but indeed exceeds Micheal Mann's version of Manhunter. Ya see I'm a really big fan of all the directors that helmed the Lecter saga-Black Rain and Blade Runner are two of my favorite movies, Mann's other films-Heat and Last of the Mohicans are without a doubt classics in the making. So I just hope when you put critique on this movie that you at least not only judge it on the fact that Jodie is gone and Julliane is in. Pour your soul into the 35mm camera and delve into the performance before you think of saying something out of term about this piece of art.

Rating:
Summary: Read the book
Review: I have read the three novels by Thomas Harris involving Hannibal Lecter; Red Dragon, The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal. I can definately say that Hannibal was the best. One of the best books I have ever read, in fact. The characters were very well defined and the plot had a good pace and fluidity to it. I was quite shocked by some of the scenes described in the book, such as the feeding of Mason's starved dogs. I found the controversial ending to be a great one, possibly not totally believable, but since when has that mattered? I was eagerly awaiting the film since last year, hoping for it to be nearly as good as the book. When I saw the film, I wasn't sure what to think. Some scenes were brilliantly recreated, such as the fish market shoot out at the start. Others were disappointing. I was quite confused during the last five minutes of the film; has he chopped her hand off or not?! I loved the sheer depth of the characters such as Mason Verger in the book, which was barely looked at in the film. I particularly enjoyed my change of opinion of Hannibal whilst reading the book; I initially wanted him to be eaten by the pigs, who wouldn't?! This changed as his character was explored far more even than in The Silence. The cause of his cannibalism stemming from the eating of his sister at a young age seemed very understandable and caused me to feel sympathy for him. This side of Hannibal's life is not even skimmed in the film and the character remains quite shallow. I was particularly disappointed by the total removal of Margot Verger, Mason's revengeful sister. The killing of Mason by Cordell in the movie seemed rushed and not properly thought through. Overall, a decent film. But, take my advice; read the book, it's far, far better than the film!

Rating:
Summary: Not Quite...
Review: My strongest suggestion is to wait for the video to be released. I would say given the script changes neither the extraordinarily talented Anthony Hopkins nor the multi-talented Julianne Moore were able to bring the original characters from the "Silence Of The Lambs" back to the silver screen. "Hannibal" attempts to cover far too much subject matter in a short amount of time, and as a result the film lacks continuity. The film begins and ends much too quickly, and expects the viewer to take in a very complex and twisted plot with various characters and a whos who of lead roles.

Certainly, it is not reasonable to compare actors and actresses one to the other; however, Julianne Moore as Clarice Starling lacks the depth and candor as shown by Jodie Foster in STL. I would say that JM reveals a much, much different emotion than JF. Take into consideration this is what draws the viewer to JM as CS.

Unfortunately, "Hannibal" as a sequel just doesn't deliver. It is just that "a sequel", at best. Regardless, you'll have fun watching this film and hearing Anthony Hopkins' "okey dokey". And then hearing Julianne Moore telling Lecter not try anything all the while he's tied up in the pig pen. The film does have some wonderful dark humor. ...don't forget your popcorn and sody. Have fun.