Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: Not Lambs, but great Hannibal!!!
Review: As a fanatic of The Silence Of The Lambs, Hannibal Lecter and Thomas Harris' work, I went last night to see Hannibal, the long awaited sequel to The Silence Of The Lambs. I've been waiting for 10 years and the moment finally arrived. I felt excited, and I think I was not the only one, because a lot of theaters in Montreal, my hometown, showed extra presentation of the movie late at night! At the movie theater, the waiting line was bigger and bigger, and I just couldn't wait to go in! The moment finally arrived, the lights were down and the previews begun...people were already cheering on the edge of their seat! What do you think happened...

First of all, Hannibal Lecter was introduced to the public in the novel by Thomas Harris, Red Dragon, put to the wide screen in 1986 under the name of Manhunter. Hannibal was at the time played by Brian Cox. The movie did not do well, but Thomas Harris brought back Dr. Lecter in his next novel, The Silence Of The Lambs. The Silence Of The Lambs was a great novel, and a great movie by winning the big five at the Oscars in 1992. But still, I think Red Dragon (Manhunter) could have been a lot better! Hannibal Lecter became Anthony Hopkins, or should I say the opposite, because today, Anthony Hopkins is also Dr. Lecter. There were rumors at the time that Thomas Harris began to write Hannibal the same night the Silence began at the theaters. Now, nine years later, the novel Hannibal is put on the shelves for the avid fan of the genre. The critics were mixed. Too gory some said, others were claiming that Thomas Harris did not do justice to Clarice Starling, played wonderfully by Academy Award winner Jodie Foster in the Silence Of The Lambs. But as for me and millions of fans in the world, Thomas Harris did what we expected...an ending that was needed to perpetuate the legend of Hannibal, the cannibal, Lecter!

The novel Hannibal brings us back where Silence Of The Lambs ended...Dr. Hannibal Lecter is on the loose, and when he learns that his favorite, F.B.I. agent Clarice Starling, is in trouble with Paul Krendler, he now feels the urge to come back from retirement to do what he does best! Mason Verger, the fourth victim of Hannibal Lecter, never forgot what he did to him in one of their session together, and now he seeks revenge. He will give 3,000,000$ to the person who will deliver him the good doctor. When a police officer from Florence, named Pazzi, hears about that...the hunt begins. Lecter has been in a state of hibernation in Florence, Italy and Pazzi finds him under the name of Dr. Fell. But Lecter is not stupid, and gets him! At that moment, he returns to America to find his love, Clarice. " Is this Clarice?...Well, hello Clarice..." At that same moment the theater was worked up and could not wait for the rest. Verger wanted now to capture Lecter and feed him to the wild pigs. We now approach the end of the movie and all the major characters are in the action, Hannibal, Clarice, Krendler, and Verger! A feast has begun. Well, certainly not as powerful as The Silence Of The Lambs, Ridley Scott did a great job. After his success with Gladiator starring Russell Crowe, Ridley Scott brings us another time to celebrate the magic of the movies. While Silence was a psychological thriller, I would qualify Hannibal as a police drama. The picture was great. We just have to look at the sunrise in Florence. He brought us an "in your face" action. Everything on the screen was big and dense. Verger's make-up was horrifying...it was almost hard to look at the screen while he was there. Some of us will miss Jodie Foster in the role of Clarice, and some of us will not. We have to remember that Jodie Foster turned down the role of Clarice because she was already involved in a movie in which she directed Russell Crowe. Rumors also claimed that Jodie did not like what Thomas Harris did to Starling...maybe we will never know the truth, but one thing is sure, Julianne Moore (The End Of The Affair, Boogie Nights) did a great job as F.B.I. agent Clarice Starling. Along side Academy Award winner Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore was up to the role. She brought us a more experienced and as much as ever idealist F.B.I. agent. Anthony Hopkins was equal to himself in the role of Dr. Lecter, but a little bit more insane that in Silence Of The Lambs. We see him wear a little bit more than a simple hospital garment, which brings his charm to a new level. In general, I would say that this movie is not for the easily scared people; those who read the book, know what I'm talking about, but for the avid fan of Hannibal Lecter, I don't think they will be disappointed...I did not! To where Silence Of The Lambs ended... "Dr. Lecter....Dr. Lecter....Dr. Lecter....Dr. Lecter....". The Silence is broken!

Rating:
Summary: Such a waste
Review: First off, there is NO comparisson to 'Silence of the Lambs'. Everything that made 'Lambs' work is gone as 'Hannibal' has been reduced to nothing more than a big-budget slasher flick. And not a very good one at that. 'Hannibal' has no psychology. The agent 'Starling' that was so interesting in the first one has been reduced (I guess by all these years in the FBI) to such generalized moroseness that she ultimately becomes boring (I read that Jodie Foster turned down the sequel because she didn't like the script - now I know why). Indeed, the fascinating and genuinely unsettling conversations Clarice and Hannibal had in Silence of the Lambs, is gone as they now chase each other around while periodically re-enacting moments from 'Beauty and the Beast'.

The Italian locations are lovely, and director Ridley Scott bathes everything in blue-green shafts of light for atmosphere, whenever possible adding the swirls of mist, fog and smoke he so loves to evoke a somber, threatening mood. But he's far less successful at pacing and construction; the action is oddly lackadaisical and languid, and the big set-pieces are very clumsily cobbled together. Eventually, the movie goes skittering into the realm of comic-strip supervillainy, and in the process the movie's human dimension is quite literally consumed. [Director] Ridley Scott slips his camera down low and hypes scenes for drama when the scenes are already way over-the-top. He backlights his characters as if they're refugees from film noir. As if intoxicated by the intensity and beauty of Florence from the movie's first half, Scott directs the movie's latter sequences as if he's staging an opera of his own. And the results are so absurd that the movie NEVER recovers.

And the 'graphic violence' is way overrated. Most of it is in the shadows and the 'infamous' ending is just a laughable parody. The thing is, Hannibal Lecter is most effective when he seems like a real threat. But as soon as he become such a blatantly fictional construct like in 'Hannibal', his power and danger begins to dissipate. As such, in spite of its Grand Guignol trappings, Hannibal becomes a safe little Hollywood-ized horror opera. Such a waste...

Rating:
Summary: This movie was the BEST!
Review: I agree with most in by saying there were parts of this movie I much rather have not seen but past all the blood gore you find a great story. You see a bond between Clarice and Hannibal, they have a mutual need for each other. Hannibal shows Clarice what she had been looking for was right in front of her. Clarice gives Hannibal want he wants...his freedom.

Rating:
Summary: So shoot me...I LOVED IT!
Review: I couldn't help myself. I loved both novel and film. I can't figure out why so many readers hated the ending to the book. I think the only improvement to the movie would have been to add that element of the story rather than skirt around it. When I ask friends about their favorite aspect of SOTL, they always say that it was the tension and weird sensuality between Starling and Lecter. The two movies are NOT to be compared, however...SOTL was Clarice with Hannibal in the background, and Hannibal was all him, with her in the background. This film needs to be admired for its beauty, however twisted it might be--Hannibal Lecter embodies what we all are, only to the extremes. He is a genius, chivalrous and stylish, but also a complete monster, Freud's id unbridled. According to the novel, Lecter only "eats the rude"...Don't we all wish at some level that we could purge ourselves of our enemies so easily? At any rate, this movie is worth watching for the wonderful Florence scenes, Hopkins' insanely beautiful hypnotic voice, and for the soundtrack, which is perfect for a dark night alone with a bottle of Chianti.

Rating:
Summary: So shoot me...I LOVED IT!
Review: I couldn't help myself. I loved both novel and film. I can'tfigure out why so many readers hated the ending to the book. I thinkthe only improvement to the movie would have been to add that elementof the story rather than skirt around it. When I ask friends abouttheir favorite aspect of SOTL, they always say that it was the tensionand weird sensuality between Starling and Lecter. The two movies areNOT to be compared, however...SOTL was Clarice with Hannibal in thebackground, and Hannibal was all him, with her in the background.This film needs to be admired for its beauty, however twisted it mightbe--Hannibal Lecter embodies what we all are, only to the extremes.He is a genius, chivalrous and stylish, but also a complete monster,Freud's id unbridled. According to the novel, Lecter only "eatsthe rude"...Don't we all wish at some level that we could purgeourselves of our enemies so easily? At any rate, this movie is worthwatching for the wonderful Florence scenes, Hopkins' insanelybeautiful hypnotic voice, and for the soundtrack, which is perfect fora dark night alone with a bottle of Chianti.

Rating:
Summary: The World's Favorite Cannibal is BACK!!
Review: I strongly feel that Hannibal is one of the first cinematic masterpieces of 2001. I know many people may disagree with me on that fact but I hold it to be true. As an adaptation of the book the filmmakers did an incredible job. The book was overly wrong, full of useless events rarely shocking and just plane flawed. The secrete to the movies success is that they subtracted rather than added. With the deleting of all of the unnecessary events of the book we get a much more interesting film. Many call Silence of the Lambs the first movie; it isn't. In fact Manhunter is the first Lecter film. And in order to truly understand the progressive insanity of the series and Hannibal you need to see Manhunter. With that said lets look at Hannibal the movie. Hopkins this time around plays a much more "human" Hannibal Lecter which adds a creepy disturbing feel to the over all atmosphere of the film. Juliann Moore is a nice fill in for Foster and in fact I felt that Moore played the part much more "grown up" than Foster could have. Ridley Scott's direction is also a nice change and his artistic style brings Hannibal to life wonderfully. Gary Oldman was also equally incredible that in his portrayal of Lecter's only living victim. Now for what I feel people have wrong with the film; they were expecting another Silence of the Lambs, full of creepy dialogue and hidden gore. It almost seems like people forgot Lecter escaped in Lambs, what is creepy and disturbing about this movie is the idea of a monster like Hannibal is free as a bird to do and eat who ever he pleases. Through out the series the amount of gore his increased from movie to movie so its only logical that Hannibal would be even more intense and in your face since in fact this is the last Lecter movie (the new one that is coming soon is a remake of Manhunter AKA Red Dragon). I don't know what people's expectations of this movie was but I loved it and as a huge film fan with a collection that numbers in the thousands I know a good move from a bad movie and this is a good movie. It just seems like everybody that wants to see a horror film now a days wants a movie like Scream instead of one that makes you sit and fester in your emotions and fears.

Rating:
Summary: This movie was FANTASTIC!!!!
Review: I went to see Hannibal and expected it to be well, dumb. It wasn't it was soooooooooo cool! It was almost exactly like the book in almost every way about. Juliane Moore was great as Clarice Starling. Jodie Foster would have been a bit better, but beggars can't be chosey. If you have not seen this movie, go see it! From my point of gruesome, it has 4 parts from what I think is gross. It's still great!

Rating:
Summary: Absolutely does not disappoint
Review: I had read "Hannibal" as well as "Silence of the Lambs" and saw that movie before I saw this film. I loved all of them, so I was afraid to expect too much from this movie. Remember what happened to Star Wars: Episode I. Yet when I saw the movie on opening night, I was not the least bit disappointed with the film.

It has been ten years since Hannibal Lecter escaped from maximum security prison. He is living the life of a king in Florence, Italy, unaware of Mason Verger. Verger is Lecter's only surviving victim, and he wants revenge. He knows that the only way to capture Lecter is to present him with what interests him most, Clarice Starling. What follows is a suspenseful game of cat-and-mouse where only a few will survive. Director Ridley Scott makes the most of the beautiful city of Florence. The scenery and architechture are quite captivating. The haunting music score fits the movie perfectly. And let's not forget the story. Being based on Thomas Harris's extremely controversial novel put this movie into an unsteady light. Yet screenwriter Steve Zaillan managed to extract the choiciest bits from the book and set aside the bad. For example, the ending. Also added are scenes not included the book, including a very well choreographed action scene inside a busy train station.

All the characters in this movie gave very strong performances. Gary Oldman, buried somewhere underneath the latex, was the perfect choice for Hannibal-hater Mason Verger. He creeps you out, but in a different way than Lecter. Julianne Moore took the place of Jodie Foster as Special Agent Clarice Starling. Although some may disagree, I believe that Moore was a perfect choice for Clarice. Jodie Foster's Clarice was a timid, inexperienced trainee. The Clarice in this movie is a smart-mouthed, veteran agent. In my opinion, Moore had the better physique for this role.

And let's not forget everybody's favorite antihero, Hannibal Lecter. Anthony Hopkins is this movie. His talent to make you squirm just by looking at you is what made this movie so powerful. The mere whisper of his name sends chills through your body, and you are not sure whether to hate him or to root for him. Granted, this movie is not as good as its predecessor. It has much more gore then "Silence of the Lambs" and the movie is worse for it. However, Lecter is as chilling as always. "Hannibal" is overall an excellent film that will be remembered.

Rating:
Summary: If you compare it to "Silence," you'll enjoy it less.
Review: I've read all three of the Thomas Harris novels that feature the notorious Hannibal Lecter. Each was a gripping read, but I remember saying to myself after reading "Hannibal" that they would never, EVER be able to put this book on film. The ending was so completely over-the-top that I was convinced Hollywood would simply want to avoid it altogether. Not only have I been proven wrong, but what director Ridley Scott has put to film is remarkably faithful to the book!

MY ADVICE is that if you enjoyed the absolutely brilliant "Silence of the Lambs," please avoid drawing comparisons between it and "Hannibal." The two films are completely different in look and emotional tone. Whereas "Silence" revolved around the psychological game of cat-and-mouse between Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling, this new film is all Hannibal's show.

In retrospect, given the script and the changes made in the denouement of Harris' novel, Jodie Foster could probably kick herself for bowing out of the film. She says it would have been a betrayal of Clarice Starling's integrity for her to fall under Lecter's sway and become his mistress (or whatever). As it turns out, the ending of the film is sufficiently different that both Jodie Foster and the audience would be satisfied. Your loss, Jodie. As Clarice Starling, I thought Julianne Moore was perfectly adequate. Like her character is portrayed in the book, here she is a bit tougher and less "green."

What really impressed me most was the amount of material from the book Ridley Scott was able to cram into the movie and still keep it from becoming a mess. A few characters have been done away with, and Thomas Harris' explanation of WHY Hannibal Lecter has become this monster isn't tackled in the film. On the other hand, Lecter's dispatch of the Italian police detective Rinaldo Pazzi is so true to the book as to be absolute ghastly PERFECTION onscreen.

"Silence of the Lambs" on one of those rare masterpieces of filmmaking that views can watch again and again and enjoy even more each time. I cannot say that for "Hannibal;" once or twice would probably be enough for me. But as a well-polished nugget of box office gold, "Hannibal" makes for a great time at the movies for anyone with a strong stomach.

Rating:
Summary: Standard boilerplate from Hollywood's finest.
Review: "Hannibal" is everything that "The Silence of the Lambs" is not. So much does director Ridley Scott push the envelope with excessive bloodshed and drawn out sequences, that he loses touch with the magic of the first film, that which made the hairs on our neck stand up. The film is well acted and grand in scale, but without a familiar sense of dread and mystery to keep us intrigued, it chews itself to pieces.

The film kicks into gear with a chase sequence that looks like a deleted scene from Scott's earlier film, "Gladiator," as Clarice Starling, now played by Julianne Moore, guns down a well-known drug ring operator. Her conduct in apprehending the suspect gets her demoted, and for a good hour or so of the movie, she will spend most of her time rummaging through files on Hannibal Lecter, reprised by Anthony Hopkins, who escaped from the law at the end of the previous film.

Her investigation leads her to Mason Verger, one of Lecter's victims, who is out for revenge. Verger is played by Gary Oldman, who is probably doomed to look like someone other than himself in any role he plays. His promise of a hefty reward catches the eye of an Italian police officer, who has spotted the famed cannibal masquerading as an art collector in Italy. He intends to turn Lecter in to Verger, ignoring the constant warnings from Starling and unaware of the real danger involved in meddling in Lecter's life.

The setup is good, but the execution and payoff are constantly tedious. "The Silence of the Lambs" had a low-key feel to it, something not quite so Hollywood or glossy. Director Jonathan Demme was able to evoke genuine suspense and tension through his photography, the fittingly creepy and downtrodden score of Howard Shore, and through the unconventional and frightening connection between its two lead characters, Lecter and Clarice.

Ridley Scott gives "Hannibal" all the guts (literally), grandeur and Hollywood glitz money can buy, something that this sequel does not need; in fact, it's a diminishing trait. His attention to cheap thrills with the use of violence and gory murders ruins the effect that Hannibal Lecter has on us. In the first film, he was frightening because of his ability to penetrate Clarice's mind, and through that, he found escape. Here, he is free to roam the Earth without worry, and witnessing his violence, I lost what little respect I had for him.

This attention to gloss diminishes any mystery or intensity we may have had in the beginning. Unlike "Lambs," which kept its secrets until the blazing, bloody end, "Hannibal" has no secrets to reveal. Starling's hunt for Lecter turns into a cat-and-mouse hunt, which comes too little to late towards the film's end. Those of us who know the relationship these two character had in the beginning know full well that any filmmaker would sooner hang himself than deny us a final confrontation involving the two. This confrontation is the cheese atop the cracker, a finale that is more laughable than it is horrific, and further decimates the connection of these two muddled souls.

Anthony Hopkins still churns out a very kinetic performance as Lecter, employing wit and intelligence through his character. We may never feel anything for the new Lecter, but the old Hopkins has not changed a bit since his days behind a pane of glass. Julianne Moore takes over where Jodie Foster left off; her acting is wonderful. In fact, it's not really Foster that we miss, but the traits of her character from the previous outing. This Clarice is given little to go on, and doesn't grab the audience's attention quite like the past Clarice.

High hopes and high expectations abound, "Hannibal" became one of 2001's most anticipated films, and one of its biggest disappointments as well. It's mind-boggling to see just how much cinema has changed in the last decade; "Lambs" is genuine, while "Hannibal" is standard fodder.