Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: Slow but good none the less
Review: I was really excited when i first heard about his movie. It had been awhile since i had seen Silence of the lambs so i refreshed my memory about a week before Hannibal came out. I have to admit that Hannibal is a lot slower than Silence but it is really good. Anthony Hopkins returns as Hannibal Lecter everyones favorite psycho. His performance isn't as creepy as in silence but when watching the movie we do have to put into acount that this movie takes place ten years after Silence so Hannibal has had plenty of time to roam and loosen up. So Hannibal essentially as a charachter has mellowed out. Juliane Moore covers very badly for Jodie Foster. She didn't talk or act anything like Jodie Foster did, which is important because as much as it irritated me Clarice Starling isn't the same without her stupid southern accent. Now a lot of critics say that this movie is way to explicit in the death seens when we are shown bowels spilling on a sidewalk and when Ray Liottas brain is exposed and essentially dissected right before our eyes. But I think when people go to a Flick like this that is exactly what they want to see. I myself get really angry when gore is left to our imagination because unless your a doctor you really don't know how to imagine it. And Finally the number one reason why this film gets a five can be summed up in two words GARY OLDMAN. Gary Oldman plays Mason Verger, Lecters fourth victim who was pyschotic enough to to cut his face off when Hannibal asked him too. Which isn't the most intelligent idea, but Verger clears it up when he tells us "It sounded like a good idea at the time." Gary has the best performance and possibly the best makeup. Hannibal is definatly one of the best sequels ever made.

Rating:
Summary: Flawed, But Entertaining
Review: This highly anticipated sequel is like a lot of other sequels: something of a letdown, but still essential viewing for fans of the original film. Ridley Scott has made a great-looking movie--it's first-rate in terms of cinematography and production design. But the script falters badly in the second hour. The Florence sequence is riveting, and Hopkins has never been more menacing as Lecter. But there are huge plot holes in the final half after the good doctor returns to America (problems that weren't so obvious in Harris' novel, by the way.) Julianne Moore is plenty tough as Starling, but she misses the character's vulnerability (maybe she would be that hard and disillusioned after ten years, though.) Ray Liotta is a nasty hoot as Krendler. And The Unknown Actor is quite good as Mason Verger (check the end credits.) The ending is significantly changed from the book, of course: there Starling's fate was much too politically incorrect. The film version will be less upsetting to admirers of the character, although I salute Harris' courage in attempting such a brave, downbeat ending. But the screenwriters do throw in a cruelly amusing last minute twist that is clearly an homage to Shakespeare's "Titus Andronicus" an obvious source for Harris' novels. It's as if the filmmakers are saying "you think *this* is gross? Check out our illustious ancestor!" (Hopkins recently played Titus in Julie Taymor's film of the same name; it obviously owes a debt to Dr. Lecter.)

Rating:
Summary: Hannibal is chilling!!!!
Review: Anthony Hopkins gave a chilling performance as Hannibal, "the Cannibal", Lector. Everytime he talked intelligent and gave historical quotes gave me chills. He seem like normal college professor, but deep-down inside he is a sadisticinsane psychopath. But people watching this movie don't seem to understand that. The movie is a suspenseful and intense thriller because it focuses on the life of a psychopath. In the beginning of the movie, we see him as a regular human being talking sophicatedly and a guy we like to listen to. But as the film progresses, we see him in true form as a cannibal. He is psychopath who likes to kill and eat people. At first we feel he is a hero and we begin to like him, which is scary because he is truly a full-blown villain. At the end, we see him do an unexplicable act and are horrify at it. For this reason, I believe most people hated the movie. It isn't because of the graphic and gory scene, it is because we were enjoying him through out the movie and was loving him, but then we are impacted, like a train wreck, and we realize that he is truly psychotic. We cannot believe we were liking this guy! And if you see Clarice at the end, she immediately changes from liking him into hating him altogether. Throughout the movie, the people were really the character of Clarice. This is truly a terrific movie and a misunderstood psychological thriller!!

Rating:
Summary: SLOPPY SECONDS
Review: Okay, here's a sequel made to order: heavy on the plot with sprinklings of Lecter doing what he does best. Yet one wants more. Desert maybe.

Fine you say. "Just wait til the last ten minutes". Groan! Not again! How many times have we heard "the last ten minutes", prior to seeing this film? Celebrities were quoted to have shrieked and gasped and "hid their eyes with their hands". What a bunch of pansies. Or overhype.

I was angered at Ridley Scott's direction of Ray Liotta's character, Paul Krendler, at the film's climax. Yes, some of the audience squirmed, one lady freaked out loud. But as Liotta spoke several lines during that build up, he became laughable, and that's how most of the theater audience reacted. Not nervous laughter, but chuckels and yuks throughout. It ruined it for me. This was supposed to be an intensely-hard, dramatic scene. Liotta turned it into a comedy bit!

I'm a fan of Ray Liotta, but there's no bigger let down than to be built up with a film of this caliber, and get this ridiculous performance at the end of the show.

One star for Julianne Moore. She's perfect. Another for cinematography, and a big third star for Gary Oldman! But what a disappointment.

Rating:
Summary: Suspend your disbelief by the thumbs!
Review: After the creepy ambience of "Manhunter" (1986) and the Oscar-winning artistry of "The Silence of the Lambs" (1991), Hannibal Lecter fans are apt to find his latest misadventures chronicled in the new "Hannibal" a little strained and unbelievable. Hannibal, as played with sly malevolence by Anthony Hopkins (reprising his role in "Silence") is now living in Florence and working as a Renaissance scholar (Lecter the Lecturer) and being pursued by a Florentine police detective (Giancarlo Giannini) as well as the tenacious Clarice Starling (they couldn't afford Jodie Foster?) in Washington DC. A wealthy, horribly disfigured victim (Gary Oldman) is also determined to bring Hannibal to the wheel of Justice; and, needless to say, all their paths cross in the most gruesome ways. Clarice's superior (Ray Liotta), an unusually obnoxious character (you just KNOW he gonna get it), figures in the movie's climax in which he unwittingly eats ... well, let's not talk about it. That climax, as well as the scene in which Hannibal commits a vicious murder in full view of the Piazza della Signoria and then evidently simply takes the next train out of town will make the viewer wonder just how much advantage the screen writers were willing to take with our eagerness to be amused, no matter what. "Hannibal" will certainly hold your attention for one sitting, but it is not food for thought.

Rating:
Summary: A worthy sequel, but not quite as good as Silence...
Review: "Hannibal" is probably the most anticipated movie to come out this year. Perhaps the greates deviation is the lack of Jodie Foster as Special Agent Clarice Starling. As a result, I was a little timid to go view this movie due to the lack of Foster. Moreover, I read the book, and was appalled by the ending.

Anthony Hopkins does an EXCEPTIONAL job as Hannibal Lecter. We were introduced to the abilities of Lecter in Silence of the Lambs, but in this movie, the audience gets to further delve into mind of this killer. Perhpas the most disturbing thing is the tone of voice he uses when killing a person. Again, Hopkins performance carries the intrigue of this movie.

Now to Julian Moore. Let's make the most important fact first.....she is not Jodie Foster. In this movie, Special Agent Starling has a fall from grace in the FBI following a major national incident. As a result, Starling does not dominate the movie as she did in Silence of the Lambs. Moore gives a brilliant attempt to fill Foster's shoes, but Starling is not the character that she was in Silence. The emphasis is placed more on Lecter than Starling.

As for the ending.....yes it is gruesome, but no, it is not the ending that is found at the conclusion of the book. Perhaps the audience would have been outraged to have the conclusion of the book be the conclusion of the movie. But, be prepared for the worst.

For the movie, the character development was pretty good. It should be noted that Ray Liotta does a good job, along with the person who plays Mason Verger. As always, Lecter is unreal. There is plent of action in this movie, but along with the action, comes the horrorific side of murder. There is plent of "blood and guts" to get your stomach churning. Ridley Scott does a great job of directing this movie. Overall, the movie is great, but I personally think it lacks in comparison to Silence of the Lambs.

Rating:
Summary: Goody-goody
Review: Everyone knows Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter. He is the one cannibal we all love-to a certain extent. What about Clarice Starling? A young, nice-looking optimist, who interviews Lecter. Well, that was ten years ago. Now, we have a new, per say, Hannibal. He is free. He is wealthy. And he has rarely killed anyone in the last ten years. Well, except for the man who had the job he wanted.

What about Clarice, the young, kind, and gentle trainee? Well, now she seems bitter. She is pretty mean. And she has killed more people than any other female FBI agent in history. Well, it seems that all those years on the force have made her tighten her collar a bit. After a botched drug bust, her captain assigns her to track Lecter.

Then, there is Mason Verger, a rich man, and Lecter's only surviving victim. Now he wants revenge. So he sets a three million dollar award for his capture. Alive, of course, so he can torture him. Combine him with Clarice, and what do you have? One of the best movies ever

"Hannibal", the third in the Lecter stories, is indeed the best of the bunch. Anthony Hopkins is back, and replacing Clarice is Julianne Moore. Strangely, she does a better job of portraying Clarice than Foster, as Clarice is a much different person now. Anthony Hopkins shines as Hannibal, providing the role with what appears to be the most fun he has ever had. We can tell he is having fun, simply by how easily he slips into the character. The supporting cast is also very good, but the shining star of the supporting cast is the actor portraying Mason, though you can only find his name at the end credits.

The main reason most people will not see this movie is because of the supposed violence. While the amount of gore ere is not as much as people have been saying. Though what people are saying about the ending is true.

So, did I like it? Yes. The script, is really well written (though not as good as the one in "Silence"). And the cast is amazing. And for sheer enjoyment, this movie takes the cake. While not in the same context as "Silence" (i.e., no serial killer), it still manages to amaze. Also, sorry about the gore paragraph, is should say: "While the amount of gore is high, it is not as high as people are saying." So enjoy, okey-dokey?

Rating:
Summary: Hannibal delivers, possibly too well
Review: Note: This review does not contain spoilers. No specifics are given away below, just impressions and comments on style and effect.

The long awaited sequel to "Silence of the Lambs" delivered all that I had hoped for, and then some. The psychological horror is done well, and is consistent with its predecessor, without falling into the trap of simply being "more of same". While this film is very different from "Silence" in several respects, the elements that made the first movie a box office smash are largely retained.

If you enjoyed "Silence of the Lambs", and always wondered what kinds of things Hannibal would do if he were not strapped down in a maximum security prison, you are going to enjoy this movie. The majority of the film succeeds with dark, suggestive visuals, combined with superb acting (we get to see a lot of Anthony Hopkins), substantial foreshadowing (by Lector), and good storytelling. The absence of Jodie Foster is disappointing, but does not prove to be the crippling factor that I expected it to be.

The film's climax is visually striking and not at all subtle. It terrifies by violently manipulating deep-seated fears and taboos that will prove to be too much for many movie-goers. To say any more would give away too much; you have been warned.

I have two pieces of advice for anyone who plans to see this movie. First, if you are planning to eat, do it before the movie, not after. Second, be prepared to see something that you have not seen before; something that may make you physically ill.

Rating:
Summary: Hannibal Is SWEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Review: When I first saw the preview for Hannibal, i knew i had to see this movie. I went to the first showing on the first day it was at our theater, and let me tell you, it was extremely awesome! I think it requires an intelligent movie lover to understand the hidden beauty behind this movie, but any Tommas Harris, Anthony Hopikins, or just plain Hannibal Lecter fan will definetly enjoy this very much. It will be studied for many years as one of the greatest horror movies of all time. It is very very true to the awsomeness of the novel. GO AND SEE THIS MOVIE!

Rating:
Summary: "Hannibal" should be "silenced" .... horrible sequel
Review: In the first film, Hannibal was sly and intelligent - and even intense and passionate - in this film he says lines like "Okey dokey" (and on more than one occasion). Hannibal is now played strictly for laughs. Ridley Scott has turned him into a modern day horror character (much like a Freddy Krueger). This film is devoid of any suspense, character development, thin plot, and Julianne Moore is no Jodie Foster (Moore's southern accent comes and goes throughout the film). The film also suffers from over length due to an extreme amount of pointless and - at times - silly dialogue. Simply put, majority of this film is boring. Extremely boring. Also, it seems that the critically acclaimed screenwriters (David Mamet & Steve Zaillan) lose focus on Hannibal Lechter's character and motivations in this film. And though this film is more of straight ahead horror film, it fails to be scary or even disturbing - but somewhat funny. Ray Liotta is wasted, and the ending of the film feels like a throw away scene from "A Texas Chainsaw Massacre" film. In closing, this film is a huge disappointment, and should be avoided at all costs. Horrible.