Rating: 
Summary: Hannibal stands on its own merits!!!
Review: I AM SICK AND TIRED OF YOU PEOPLE WHO SAY IT WAS A DISSAPOINTMENT, "SILENCE WAS BETTER"! I MEAN YOU SOUND LIKE A BUNCH OF ...BABIES HANNIBAL IS ITS OWN MOVIE, THATS WHY ITS CALLED HANNIBAL!! ITS NOT SILENCE OF THE LAMBS 2! AND, "OH HE ATE HIS BRAIN THAT WAS SO TRASHY AND WRONG!" ... IF YOU WANT TO BLAME SOMEONE, BLAME THOMAS HARRIS! NOT RIDLEY SCOTT. HE WAS JUST FOLLOWING THE BOOK .... WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE RATHER HAD HANNIBAL EATING HIS FINGER, IF HE WOULD HAVE DONE THAT, YOU PEOPLE STILL WOULD OF COMPLAINED, AND YOU WOULD HAVE SAID "THATS NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE BOOK"! AND LEAVE JULIANNE MOORE ALONE, JUST BECAUSE JODIE FOSTER IS TO "GOOD" FOR THE ROLE, WELL I SAY... HER! FRANKLY I COULD NOT STAND JODIE, HER ACCENT GOT ON MY NERVES! AND YOU PEOPLE WHO SAY "CLARICE'S CHARACTER IS GONE" WELL DUH! SHE HAS BEEN IN THE FBI FOR A DECADE, SHE IS WIPED OUT AND USED TO IT, THE REASON SHE WAS SO FRESH IN SILENCE WAS BECAUSE SHE WAS JUST STARTING OUT. THATS WHAT TEN YEARS DOES TO A PERSON PEOPLE. LIKE MANY PEOPLE SAY, IT TOOK A LOT OF GUTS TO REPLACE JODIE FOSTER, JULIANNE KNEW THERE WAS GONNA BE PREJUDICES. BUT SHE DID IT ANYWAY. I RESPECT HER FOR THAT GREATLY! JULIANNE IS A VERY TALENTED ACTRESS WHO CAN PULL OFF ANYTHING. AND HANNIBAL WAS STILL KEWL IN THIS ONE. "HE'S NOT SCARY ANYMORE" WELL THE ONLY REASON HE WAS LIKE THAT ON SILENCE WAS BECAUSE HE WAS TRAPPED, IT HAS BEEN A DECADE, HE USED TO BEING FREE! THERE IS NO GLASS ANYMORE! AND I THINK THEY PORTRAYED HANNIBAL'S ATTITUDE VERY WELL. IF YOU NOTICE ON SILENCE WHEN HE IS LISTENING TO THE MUSIC IN HIS BARRED CELL, HE IS LISTENING TO THE SAME MUSIC THAT IS PLAYED IN THE OPENING CREDITS OF HANNIBAL. VERY GOOD TOUCH RIDLEY AND HANS. HANNIBAL IS A VERY GOOD MOVIE. AND ANOTHER COMPLAINT " IT HAS NOT STORY!" YES IT DOES HAVE A STORY, ITS JUST DOESNT ADD ANYTHING NEW, THATS GOOD, ITS JUST A CONTINUATION OF WHAT HAPPEND NEXT, WOULD YOU HAVE RATHER OF HAD IT LIKE SCREAM AND CLARICE FIND OUT THAT HANNIBAL IS HER LONG LOST BROTHER OR SOMETHING, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN RIDICULOUS! THE MOVIE IS JUST FINE, IT WAS MADE WELL, IT HAD GOOD DIRECTION, GOOD ACTING (ESPECIALLY MOORE AND HOPKINS) AND GOOD MUSIC! ...
Rating: 
Summary: Hannibal the Cannibal Loses a Little Mystique
Review: It's inevitable: Make a sequel to a classic film (such as "The Silence of the Lambs" was), and viewers will compare it to the original. Ninety-nine times out of 100, that comparison will be unfavorable."Hannibal" is not awful. The main problem I had was the way in which it destroyed some of the mystique surrounding Hannibal Lecter's character. In "Manhunter," and especially "The Silence of the Lambs," Hannibal Lecter was pure evil -- death and chaos incarnate. From the minute Anthony Hopkins first appears in "The Silence of the Lambs," you realize he is only in prison because he hasn't CHOSEN to escape yet. He's smarter than everyone else in the film, including Clarice. Scariest of all was how what he was capable of was left to the viewer's imagination: Watch the first scenes in "Silence" in which Hannibal's character is described before he's shown on-screen. With "Hannibal," Lecter is the main character, and it's therefore necessary to EXPLAIN him a little. I'd preferred to believe Lecter's interest in Clarice was more intellectual than romantic, but "Hannibal" leaves little doubt of his (perversely) romantic intentions. By showing what novelist Thomas Harris conceived as the upward limits of how bad Lecter could be, it didn't allow me to imagine even worse crimes. Worst of all was the attitude with which Lecter was approached. In "Silence," only Lecter himself (and Hopkins) treated him as campy -- which is appropriate, as Hannibal Lecter certainly would have that attitude. In "Hannibal," unfortunately, EVERYONE with the possible exception of Clarice Starling (and Julianne Moore) -- including director Ridley Scott and screenwriters David Mamet and Steven Zaillian -- treat Lecter as a campy character, thus reducing him from the disturbingly attractive embodiment of evil to just another movie slasher. The performances are great. Hopkins, Gary Oldman and Ray Liotta are all clearly having fun in their roles. Moore, to her credit, does not do a Jodie Foster impression but makes the character her own, and more's the pity that Clarice is almost an afterthought in this film. The script is imaginative and twisted. If this was a different character, I probably would have given the film three stars.
Rating:
Summary: Second helping.
Review: Inevitable sequel to *The Silence of the Lambs*. Overrate *Silence*, and *Hannibal* is what you deserve. It rather reminded me of Anthony Hopkins' other Guignol work, *Titus*: over-the-top, striving for grandness, unnecessarily baroque, eventually sickening. Lovers of *Silence* are unhappy with this movie, which puzzles ME, at least: such disappointment presupposes that the older movie was a masterpiece, or something. For those of you let down with Ridley Scott's movie, just be glad that he tried something different, refusing to ape the "successful" elements of *Silence*. The movie has an original style and unusually anguished feel to it: no *Silence 2*, this. However, one may rightly wonder why a movie about a cannibal presents him merely as a cook. Well, that's because -- like other famous movie villains -- we've gained "affection" for Hannibal Lecter (or at least the studio bean-counters have), and the movie inevitably puts us on his side. For those (admittedly few) of us who've not been converted, who withhold a rooting interest for the serial killer, the movie offers very little. We're left stranded. *Hannibal* isn't as bad as the *Silence* diehards or the queasy moralists say it is, but it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Afterthought: Jodie Foster is obviously a foresighted woman -- she saw this sinking ship coming toward her from miles away. This is a metaphoric way of saying that Julianne Moore should've known better.
Rating:
Summary: Might as well not
Review: Should have been good with the direction from Ridley Scott and the reprisal of Anthony Hopkins as the title character... yet it wasn't. Even with all the trick camera shots, it wasn't visually entertaining, intelligent, worth the ticket price. And these reviews I see others have written, everyone thinks the book ending would have been better but the company (MGM) spent much money and ended up with three different endings, one from the book, one partially adapted from the book, and the one in the movie. David Mamet's only task on the writing was to re-write the ending, and that is just such an incredible waste of his talents. It's good to see Demme and Tally have morals and quality, but it shamed me to hear that Foster only turned down the part because she couldn't get the money she wanted. Now that's more horrible than Lecter. Might be worth a RENT if you are able to find the dvd with all the features, but all in all no special features would redeem you for paying twenty dollars for this dribble, it is a bloody, violent, at times boring, waste of celluloid... but hey, most people just go for blood these days.
Rating:
Summary: Lacks brains
Review: Jeesh, this is the first movie I have ever seen where someone in the theater threw up due to the content of the movie. In fact, I am still astonished that movies with content like this are given an R rating, while movies with excessive naughty language or exposed genitals get the NC-17 or X shaft. Regardless of content, this movie was pretty flat. Sir Anthony Hopkins was good as usual, and I thought Julianne Moore did a pretty good job as well, but the script and direction were very much lacking in brains. Ridley Scott's directing is very high in style, but has little substance. He fills the screen with slick shots and edits, but they do not bring any deeper meaning to the film. He also leaves nothing unsaid, never letting the audience figure out anything on their own. One example illustrates how much better of a movie Jonathan Demme made in Silence of the Lambs. Both films explored the aspect of women in a mostly male occupation (FBI agent), and the difficulties that come with it. Silence of the Lambs portrayed this with subtle eye movements and stares from men over Clarice Starling's body. Hannibal does it with Ray Liotta screaming, "country pussy" over and over again. Character development is handled the same way. The script throws Mason Verger's early fancy for young boys right out at our first proper introduction to him, seemingly so we can start hating him at that point. The story puzzled me as well. They set up Lecter as a brilliant man, foiling any plot to recapture him with violently clever retribution, only to have him fall into an obvious and foolish trap. This movie lacks the suspense of Silence, and its only fallback seems to be gory violence. Every death seems to get grizzlier, with blood and guts filling the screen. If you are looking for a thriller, this isn't it. If you are looking for a mindless slasher, this is your movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Very good, well worth your time
Review: Let me say it first "The book is better". But if you judge this film on its own merits then it deserves 4 stars. This is a very good looking film. I love Ridley Scott films, his attention to detail and the way every scene is so well designed in this film is wonderful. Yes, the film is gory in spots but so is Harris' book. The only problem with the movie is that Scott did not spend more time revealing Hannibal's past, why he is so crazy, like in the book.
Rating:
Summary: Hannibal... Masterpiece?
Review: Let me say one thing first, Anthony Hopkins is a brilliant actor. He can make the most of any role he adopts. He did the same for Hannibal in this film adaption of Harris's book of the same title. However, little can be said for much else of this film. Don't get me wrong, Julianne Moore is a talented actress, but perhaps not suited to this role. Personally, I feel that the role should've went to Gillian Anderson, whose character on the "X-Files" (Dana Scully) was in fact based on Clarice Starling. Props to JM though, she had big shoes to fill in the abscence of Jodie Foster. Ridley Scott is probably best known for his work on "Gladiator." He has a way with the camera. He works it as though one was on a rollercoaster. I felt as though many of the shots in the movie were extremely elaborate and unnecessarily so. For instance, what was up with the squence at the beginning with random images? Was there a hidden meaning? Finally, the ending. Now, I won't give it away for those who haven't seen the movie yet, but it forces Hannibal to do something that fans would know not to be true to his character. I think the ending of the book would have been much better suited to end the movie.
Rating:
Summary: Goody Goody
Review: This movie was soo cool, hannibal is te most creative serial killer in the movies. He is pure evil. I hate the new Ms. Starling though. But all the same well done.
Rating:
Summary: GREAT!!
Review: This was a great movie. Though lacking cannabalism,the movie was never boring and was surprising in nearly every scene. To call this movie bad is an insult to silence of the lams and the prequel manhunter.
Rating: 
Summary: Horrible and completely absurd
Review: This movie is one of the biggest disappointments EVER. First of all, it is nowhere close to being as good as either Manhunter or Silence of the Lambs. In those movies, Hannibal was a smart, cunning villain who used his mind to scare you to death. In this movie, Hannibal is no different that Freddy Krueger, Jason, or even that ... doll Chucky. The movie is so predictable that even a small child could pick out every character who was going to die within the first five minutes of the movie. Another huge flaw was the way in which Hannibal's victims met their end. The italian cop is killed by Hannibal after he goes up to apprehend him and conveniently forgets to bring his gun along with him....then the two hitmen who do manage to remember to bring guns to get Hannibal with just seem to freeze for no apparent reason while Hannibal slashes them with a small knife. And maybe it was just me, but the way Mason Verger was killed made absolutely NO sense what so ever. And what the hell was up with the killer pigs? Killer pigs?!?!?! I should have realized at that point that the movie would be a complete mess. Anyways, the movie is gory...and it will gross just about everyone out. But it is in no way scary or suspenseful at all. There is very little difference between this movie or Hellraiser.... Disappointing, very disappointing.....
|
