Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: Good...
Review: ...but not quite great.

Anthony Hopkins did an excellent job reprising his role as Hannibal. "Hannibal" seems to lack the suspense and originality of "Silence of the Lambs", but is still very much worth watching. The key problem with this movie is probably that it has a real hard time living up to the great story telling of "Silence of the Lambs."

All in all, this film is well worth seeing.

Rating:
Summary: Beautifully Grotesque!
Review: Let me say at the outset that "Hannibal" is not a sequel to "Silence of the Lambs." Once you realize that the two works stand on their own it is much easier to appreciate the two. To be sure, "Hannibal" is infinitely more obvious than it's predecessor. "Silence of the Lambs" was more Clarice's story whereas this one is Hannibal's. Nor is there any compromise whatsoever in Julianne Moore's performance. She is quite simply, excellent. Jodie is not missed at all. Anthony Hopkins does a masterful job of recreating Dr. Lecter. The soundtrack which is positively beautiful while outlining some of the most grotesque scenes of violence I have ever witnessed only add to the wonder of the production. The shots of Florence are spectacular. Top notch!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing extras
Review: While I enjoyed the movie, the way the "cut" scenes were presented was a disappointment. They were not included in the movie where they should have been, but instead were placed in a separate section. Sometimes it was difficult to tell where they actually would have been in the movie.

Rating:
Summary: Good, but not the Book
Review: Hannibal is an excellent film, but it has little or nothing to do with the spirit of Harris's book. Thank the lord, probably, because the book was so horrific, it could never be filmed accurately. I, and many I know, had to keep putting the book down while reading it--on film, it would be impossible to sit through. Harris's point was the corruption of the FBI and the federal government and that in comparison, the madness and evil of Hannibal Lecter was small potatos. In a world of such structural immorality, Lecter can become the protagonist one roots for. The world is truly turned upside down. In the film version, the public and private crucifixion of Clarice is barely touched upon, nor is the true evil of Mason Verger and the corruption he and his family spread in U.S. society. Without reading the book, one cannot realize the true dimensions of what was happening to Clarice, the one honest woman left in the USG, nor to the U.S. Congress and justice system. In light of this, it would have been impossible for Clarice and Hannibal to sail off into the Buenos Aires sunset together, as they did in the novel. So, much of the shock value and true tension of the book is lost in the film, and one has a traditional ending where the left hand of justice triumphs, ironically, and Clarice is left standing, still inside the 'system,' whether as a member of the FBI or not. Juliette Moore does very well as Clarice Starling, making one forget Jodie Foster. Anthony Hopkins, alas, is showing his age; if another sequel is in the works, they better make it fast. It's difficult to generate chills for a gereatric serial killer missing an appendage.

Rating:
Summary: OK - but not chilling enough
Review: In "The Silence Of The Lambs", Dr Lecter was way more
chilling and scary. Here he is just an invincible
bogey man. Where is his erudition?
Shucks! Must have left it in Italy - at the lecture.

Of course I am a fan of the ending of the book, so I
wanted this movie to be better.

Julianne Moore gives a very creditable performance as
Starling. There was nothing here ( unlike the book ) to
make Jodie Foster shy away from playing Clarice again.
Now let us see if Mr Harris writes another book how the
movie makers can reconcile it to the completely botched
ending of the movie.

The chemistry between Lecter and Starling from the first movie
is completely lacking. But it does seem to have been
transferred to the scene at the opera between Lecter and Passi's
wife. You could imagine him killing Passi for being an ignorant
boor. I cannot imagine him killing his wife - so the line that
begins "I was was thinking of......" now only has one possible

interpretation.

Rating:
Summary: The Doctor is in.....
Review: When Hannibal was eating his way through theaters earlier this year, I thought to myself "I can't wait for the DVD!!!" I live for the behind-the-scenes stuff, so I was dying to find out how the filmmakers accomplished the effects...Gary Oldman's Verger makeup, the pigs, the climactic buffet scene....so did the DVD deliver? Pretty much. The deleted scenes were very good, and I was especially pleased to see a VERY long sequence concerning Inspector Pazzi's hunt for the infamous "Il Mostre". These scenes really fleshed out the characters. The 5 behind the scenes featurettes are informative, even if there is virtually NOTHING about the Verger makeup. I really enjoyed the the poster gallery, as well. The film itself looks great, and the commentary by Director Ridley Scott is a keeper. I especially liked his overview of the 3rd ending they were considering. Couldn't they have filmed the Book's ending though?

Rating:
Summary: Where's Jodie when you need her?
Review: I must agree with Robert B. Paul, of Bridgeport; newsguy202, of Falls Church; and rkfj, of Upper Darby, PA.
It's too bad you can't rate a movie less than 1. This movie is for the intellectual types that can understand the deeper meanings of thespian arts that were obviously overwhelming in movies like "Night of the living Dead"!
I collect movies of all types, many of them strictly for the cast. I have all but one of Anthony Hopkins movies, "Hannibal".
I bought it on D.V.D. but gave it away after my first viewing.
This movie was far below the talents of Hopkins. I will think twice before purchasing another of his films. Certainly not without reading some of ... reviews. I have never been sorry with Jodie, and am proud of her for turning this one down!
This story is needlessly fragmented, although not hard to follow.
The author of "Dick and Jane" could have written the script. Much of the violence of "Silence of the Lamps" was implied, as opposed to the extremely distracting visual effects of this film. You can't enjoy a film if your head is turn away through half of it. This movie should be mandatory for pre-med students to see if they have what it takes.
I'm not sure what Ray Liota's character's governmental position was, (remember I only saw this film once), but he was a dufus. God forbid we actually hire people like that to watch over us.

Rating:
Summary: Sick? yes! But about what ?
Review: Do you know what really makes me sick in this movie?... To see every minute on the screen the name of a famous Italian fashion designer. This is really where obscenity is in today Hollywood cinema.

Rating:
Summary: Hannibal
Review: Completely different from the book, but just as good. Sir Tony did an outstanding job as Lecter, and Julianne Moore, not as good as the original Clarice, but good anyway. And the brains! Oh what a masterpiece! The strange twist at the end, how Lecter gets away from Clarice, I didn't notice at first, and then I saw the sling! I'd say the most disgusting part is not the bowels, the brains, or the kiss, but when he feeds the small boy on the plane at the end. If you don't like cannabalism, you should remember as my mother told me, and certianly yours told you, that you should always try new things. BRILLIANT!

Rating:
Summary: Best in the Series
Review: I understand why this movie may be a disappointment to those who enjoyed the first two movies in the series. This movie is far less the typical mystery/horror movie than the other two. While Hannibal does actually contain some more interesting insights into the operation of the FBI than the other two (its internal politics and sexism) and does illustrate some interesting investigative techniques (e.g., using experts in the perfume industry who can accurately pinpoint the sources of different scents), this movie is more of a psychological exploration. And although it does have the goriest scenes of the whole series (although they are few and far between), it isn't much of a horror movie until the infamous dinner scene (which made even my iron-cast stomach queasy). For one thing, it is more of a character study of Hannibal, giving more insight into his character than the other two movies do about their villians, than a mystery. And it also requires more participation and introspection by the audience and isn't a movie you can just expect to sit back and be thrilled by. As a result, Hannibal, brilliantly performed by Hopkins, becomes one of the most three-dimensional, multifaceted characters I've seen in the history of cinema, especially for a villian, and the movie also winds up raising questions about our perceptions of "evil", etc.

The movie is divided into three basic sections: an introduction, the story of the Italian detective who tries to profit from tracking Hannibal in Florence, and the story of Clarice also pursuing and confronting Hannibal. The actions of Clarice and the Italian, both of "poor breeding",are contrasted to show how, e.g., one rises above her station in life, proving that class is meaningless, while the other allows himself to be sunk into a pit out of his greed. (The Italian detective is a person who Hannibal would describe as having two low-diving starlings as parents instead of one (Clarice).) Unfortunately, the ending of the movie is a bit too ambiguous for my taste, but the journey is very worthwhile. Furthermore, the acting (Julianna Moore is superior to Jody Foster), music, scenery and cinematography is breathtaking (it is, as some jokingly describe it, like Merchant-Ivory's first slasher film). Its only problem is in finding the right audience (one that is intellectual but loves horror). A very interesting hybrid of high-brow and low-brow cinema.