Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: Disgusting, Disturbing, Pointless
Review: This movie contains the most disturbing scene I've ever seen on film. I won't even describe it. It's sad that Hollywood puts out this trash, even sadder that an actor such as Anthony Hopkins contributes to it, and even sadder that millions of people apparently find gratuitiously gory portrayals of cannibalism entertaining. :-(

Rating:
Summary: Much more than a grotesque horror film
Review: Writing this movie off as a senseless catalogue of horrors does a terrible injustice to it. In this version, Lecter is free and living in Tuscany, which automatically involves a shift in the tone of the film. No longer the caged animal, Dr. Lecter is living the high life in Florence as an expert in Medieval and Early Renaissance Literature. Lecter free is Lecter happy, and Anthony Hopkins admirably portrays his verve. I thought Julianne Moore portrayed an older, more world-weary, Clarice Starling with skill, and is by no means just a second-choice-after-Jodie-Foster. Foster's Starling was inexperienced, though promising. Moore shows the flowering of that promise superbly. Gary Oldman played as he always does, with a brilliant conviction. But enough, anyone can test the truth of this by viewing the movie.

... An explanation for the violence of Hannibal. It was sufficient to turn many viewers' stomachs, and I'm not entirely sure that they were wrong, albeit one can see equally graphic video of *real live people* with the top of their head cut away while undergoing brain surgery--in some cases they are still conscious and talking! In the other cases, the cinematography shows very little. The disfiguring of Mason Verger is in blurry and shaky camera work, the attack on the nurse (referred to in Silence and played in video here) is entirely obscured by Lecter's back and the bodies of two orderlies, and the final end of Mason Verger is again primarily not seen, only enough is shown to give us an idea of the horror. That so many reacted so strongly suggests that Ridley Scott achieved his probable goal in showing us little, but making it seem like much more. The violence is not gratuitous, nor does it detract from the psychological aspects of the story, rather it allows us to delve into the psychology of Lecter as never before. Hannibal is Lecter's murderous fantasies made flesh, just as the equally mad Mason Verger nurses his plans of revenge by flesh-eating boars. In each case, these wealthy, cultured men seem to take their inspiration from their reading, and here's the irony in the previous reviews which decry Hannibal as an expression of everything that is wrong with American culture and cinema: Hannibal's violence comes straight from the classic literature and arts both he and Mason Verger live on. The analogy between the death of Rinaldo Pazzi and the end of Judas Iscariot is made explicit, but there are even more instances of literary borrowings. Adonis was killed by a man-eating boar, and even eating brains has literary precedent: Ugolino della Gherardesca, the Count of Donoratico, was of a Ghibelline family, but double-crossed them to raise the Guelphs to power in Pisa. When the Ghibellines seized control, he was dispatched to prison by Archbishop Ruggieri degli Ubaldini where he died. They both betrayed something, the Archbishop his acquantance, and the Count his country and family tradition, so Dante put them both in Cocytus in Canto XXXIII, where the Count was forever eating away at the brain of his treacherous friend. Thyestes may also be another model, in this case the Thyestian banquet is made even more ironic by the fact that Krendler is unaware of his self-cannibalization. This is the sort of stuff Lecter and Verger learned, and it's not ultimately unsurprising that they'd fashion their revenges and violence on classical models and allows us insight into the way they think. Far from being less psychologically interesting than its predecessor, Hannibal becomes more so, because we are able to see their motivations made plain by each act of violence...

Rating:
Summary: If you've never read the book, this movie is excellent
Review: as a whole, it's a good flick, but I was terribly dissapointed in how much it strayed from the book. I mean, I know every movie strays from it's book, even the 1st Harry Potter flick (contrary to the belief of most), but I feel they cut out some of the key points of the story in the movie. Remember how Clarice and Hannibal were lovers at the end of the book? Not so at the end of the movie. All through the book/movie it's obvious how Hannibal has such an admiration for Clarice, and Clarice holds a certain distant respect and reverance for the good ole doc, and it's so obvious these two will hook up. This gives strength to just how personal this case is for Clarice. This personal sense is most prevalent when she decides to continue the case "against" the good doctor after being placed on administrative leave. And she gets arrested at the end?! That's not right. That soooo did not happen in the book. And whatever happenned to Mason's sister? Margot, I think her name was? She played a short, albeit important role in the book, and she is just not in the movie at all. In the movie it's obvious that Mason's staff doesn't exactly like the [person], and I think that if they'd left the sister in, and gave an accurate portrayal of her teaming up with Barney, ultimately causing his death, then they'd have done a better job of showing how Mason's "dictatorship" lead to a revolt, resulting in his demise. Sure, feed him to the pigs. That makes no sense. Maybe they left some key points out of the movie to make room for the slow-starting beginning. The director really, really let us down on this one folks; that is such an injustice. To tell you the truth, though, I feel that Thomas Harris could have completely left out the Evelda Drumgo bit, and just started with the Xray arrival. But, that's one person's opinion.

Rating:
Summary: O so slow,so slow, O Clarise wear ever did you go?
Review: I exsepted this to be simailer to Silence of the Lambs Jump right to the point!, This doesnt yes it has a lot of talking in it,, IN my opion this could go on the list of the worst sequals. It just has Starling looking again for Dr.Lecter, after 10 years she recives a letter from him!!!
Why Jodi Foster! why!!! Dont get me 1 this Clarise does good but she looks younger,, I mean this is like 10 years later.

Despite what many probly think I think this should be the final moive going foward in time,, I mean I think haveing Lecter thrown back in jail would be to orgianal ending after all Lecter is a very smart guy in deed.
Note to the productes: If you ever consider makeing a IV one DONT go ahead go back explane more about Dr.Lecter's past before he was thrown in jail!

Rating:
Summary: I hope Hopkins got paid a boatload for this abomination!!!
Review: I recently saw Red Dragon which prompted me to write this review. First of all, Red Dragon was a good movie. Second of all, Silence of the Lambs was a great movie. Last of all, Hannibal was perhaps one of the ten worst movies imaginable. It perhaps surpasses Biodome starring Pauly Shore to crack the top five. At any rate, Julianne Moore replaced Jodi Foster, who made the best career choice of her life by not starring in this film. Julianne Moore is a great actress, but she shot herself in the foot by being in this movie. Hopkins, who I've been a fan of since the movie Magic (a great horror movie for those of you who like scary movies), must have got paid seven billion dollars to play this role. A man of his talent and integrity would have certainly turned it down for anything less. Let's look at the discrepencies, shall we, of Hannibal from the other two films. For one, Hannibal was a psychological genius; therefore, he wouldn't have met Clarice at a GD mall just to see her, hence, setting himself up for capture. Next, even though Clarice seemingly admired Lector, she wanted nothing more than to see him captured; therfore, she wouldn't have freed him from his captors who were trying to feed him to the wild boars (SPeaking of wild boars, for those of you who like good short stories, read The Boar Hunt). Finally, Hannibal ate a man's brain in probably the most disgusting of things I've ever seen (Until watching that part of the movie, it had been a dog eating its own poop).
Hannibal was written for money, filmed for money, and acted in for money. THis is the only plausible explanation I have for the movie being made. Ridley Scott, who I held in the highest of esteem after Alien, lost some definite cool points for this [bad] film and as far as I'm concerned, the next film he directs, I'll skip and just stay at home and watch my dog eat her own poop.

Rating:
Summary: The Silence of The Lambs 2: The Revenge of Hannibal Lecter
Review: The sequel wasn't so great. Ten Years after Clarice Starling killed Buffalo Bill, Clarice(Now played by Julianne Moore) forgets about Dr. Lecter(Anthony Hopkins), until one day she recieves a letter from the evil doctor. He writes that he is enjoying his days in Rome, Italy, where Clarice searches for him. There was a little bit two much gore in this movie(Lecter killing the Inspecter, Lecter removing the top of Ray Liotta's head) but this movie was ok. Red Dragon did really good though.

Rating:
Summary: A Hammer horror film in all but name
Review: At the end Hammer films churned out a number of overwrought films with heavy handed direction and weak scripts. What has all that got to do with Hannibal? Read on and you'll find out. First, the title should have been a dead give away that this was not SOL or Red Dragon.

Hannibal has more in common with Alien than with Silence Of The Lambs. Ridley Scott has made a mainstream horror film. It's a shell game really. Scott has taken the genre trappings and put them under another walnut too swiftly for most folks to see. The baroque novel that Thomas Harris wrote really wasn't a very good sequel to his two popular bestsellers Red Dragon and SOTL. The screenplay does the best with what it's got.

The performances are over the top as can be expected in a gradiose horror spectacle. Gladiator, Scott's previous film, took Spartacus and merged it with a sword and sandal b movie creating a new sort of gory epic. With the added element of that film's satire (greatly on display in Hannibal as well), this uneasy alliance of different genres worked pretty well.

It's a pity that Jodie Foster didn't return to the role of Clarice Starling. Having Julianne Moore play the role brings a different element to the role. She has a world weariness and maturity that Foster might not have been able to bring to the table. That's not slightling Foster. It's a compliment to Moore in that she brought her own interpretation and emotional baggage to the role. Anthony Hopkins is, as befits his character, all over the place. He overplays the role a bit but it works given the film's context as a horror film. Ray Liotta plays a scummy FBI agent that is everything Starling is not -- a perfect foil who is more glory hound and politican than devoted government agent.

The screenplay improves Harris' feeble novel. The elements that were taken out are more in line with how the audience believed the characters would behave. In fact, it seems as if Harris' novel has completely different characters with the same names as in the previous work. That's not the case with the film. It's true to its character sources.

Is this film detestable? Frankly, there are moments that are pretty disgusting. But these moments also prevent Hannibal from becoming the anti-hero of the piece. He does unpleasant and disgusting things because he's evil. There's no cosmic sense of justice at work. That's where Moore's performance as Starling works well--she becomes the moral center of the film. Despite her dishonor, she continues to hold on to her sense of morality. It isn't dictated by politics but by what is right.

The film runs too long and the convulted plot doesn't hang together as well here as it did in SOTL (or Red Dragon). The later is due to the poor source material. I read Harris' book and, frankly, he was trying to destroy the sense of "romance" that had arisen around these two characters. While his intention was honorable, the plotting for Hannibal was sloppy and the character motivations poorly thought out. The screenwriters do a good job of cleaning up the book and making the story more coherent and presentable. Scott does keep Harris' tone though and that's probably what disgusts people more than anything else but it was meant to disgust at the same time as entertain.

You'll enjoy this film if you accept it not as a thriller but as a horror film. Silence Of The Lambs was a thriller in the Hitchcockian sense. Hannibal is clearly informed by all the European (particularly Italian) low budget horror films made during the 70's and 80's. Hannibal could have been directed by Mario Bava (if he was alive of course) with similar results. The film is powerful, unpleasant and atmospheric. It's also entertaining in a sick sort of horror film way. Which is precisely what Scott was aiming for. The cult of Lecter needed to be shaken up so that the audience can see him for what he is; a charming, arrogant sociopathic monster. Hannibal is a clear descendant of the type of films Hammer churned out in the late 60's and early 70's. Perhaps that's how it was intended. I'd suggest avoiding Hannibal if you're pretty easily sickened by gore.

Rating:
Summary: Not the Best, but Still Quite Good and Terrifying
Review: This movie is a lot better than I remembered the first time I saw it. I remember when I first saw it at theatres, I didn't think much of it. It was an all right film, but it was no "Silence of the Lambs." The movie just gave me the impression of an overly gory slasher flick instead of the psychological thriller we were all expecting. Well, after seeing it a few more times on DVD, I admit that my feelings on the film have changed a little, and I like it a lot more than when I saw it for the first time. "Hannibal" is a dark and haunting film that marks the return of Dr. Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lecter.

After being a free man in the outside world for quite some time, Lecter has grown bored and wants excitement. He wants some fresh blood, and more importantly, he wants to see Agent Clarice Starling face-to-face again. Once again playing mind games and manipulating anyone whom comes in contact with him, Dr. Lecter is ready to make some noise once again. And now Lecter's fourth and only surviving victim wants to exact revenge upon Hannibal, for mutilating him and nearly killing him. This all adds up to a shocking and unforgettable tale with twists and turns.

The film looks and sounds incredible. Picture and sound quality is crystal clear and haunting. I think we are able to see and hear a little TOO MUCH at times. Actors in the movie did outstanding jobs in their parts. (You don't even recognize Gary Oldman. Sheesh, is he ugly or what?) Anthony Hopkins is still chilling as the one and only Hannibal. Although there is no Jodie Foster, Julianne Moore does an exceptional job in her place. Ray Liotta should also be mentioned, for he does a great job as well. Ridley Scott did a wonderful job of painting a horrifying and dark picture of an unforgiving tale that will stay in your head no matter how hard you try to forget it.

The film is based upon Thomas Harris' novel. I read it after seeing the movie, and to be honest, I thought it was an all right read. Nothing compared to "The Silence of the Lambs," but still a good read. The film is similar and different to the book. Many will notice the change in ending in the film version. I actually thought the way it ended in the book was a little too strange and out there for me, although it was pretty amusing and surprising. I think like how the movie ends just a little bit better. Don't ask me why, I just do. But if you really do think about it, both endings work.

My biggest problem with "Hannibal" is that it is more of a stylish slasher flick than a dark and clever psychological thriller. I just think Lecter's character is more powerful and frightening when he is a minor character, as with "Silence of the Lambs" and "Red Dragon." It's creepier when the movies or books don't just revolve around his character, because I feel it is his POTENTIAL to do harm is more powerful and frightening than him just simply killing everyone in his way. But I think what made me like this movie more now than before is I try to think of it as it's own movie, and not part of a trilogy. Think of it as a stand-alone film, just as Ridley Scott thinks of it. If you do that, chances are you may enjoy the movie more. Yes, I think it's flawed and there are a few problems with it, but overall it can be a pretty impressive film if you watch it with an open mind.

Now, the DVD is remarkable. I already mentioned how the picture and sound quality is out of this world, including the fact that you can watch the movie in DTS. There are tons and tons of special features, including an extended ending, deleted scenes, feature-length commentary from the director, trailers, behind the scenes features, and many more. Plenty for you to keep your mind occupied with.

So, I think "Hannibal" is a much better film after seeing it a few times and trying to think of it as a stand-alone film. Of course, "The Silence of the Lambs" and the recent film "Red Dragon" are much better films and books, but "Hannibal" is still very good with only a few problems. Just keep in mind that this is a very violent and gory movie. If you're not up to it, I suggest that you skip it. Because where the violence and gore in "The Silence of the Lambs" and "Red Dragon" are mostly just the aftermath of a murder, the violence in this one happens right there on the spot. Be warned, it can be an uneasy film to watch.

Oh, and by the way, anytime you get to hear Dr. Lecter say "Goodie, goodie," or "Okie-dokie," it's well worth the price of admission.

Rating:
Summary: A great stand-alone movie.
Review: Hannibal isn't Silence of the Lambs, and there's a reason for that-it's not supossed to be. While I could write a whole review on the comparrisons Hannibal gets to Silence, I won't do that. There's really no reason to do so. There are two totally different movies.

What I will say about the two is that though Hannibal is a sequel, it really is only a sequel in terms of the characters of Clarise Starling and Hannibal Lector. There's no Jack Crawford or Buffalo Bill. That's pretty much it. That's one of the reasons this movie deserves more credit that it gets, is because it works without not having seen "Silence", though it works better have seeing it.

To sum up the plot, Hannibal is a movie about Hannibal Lector. Out. Around. And no cell to hold him this time. This time Hannibal is living in Italy and is enjoying the finer things in life. All is going well for Dr. Lector untill a vengeful past victim puts Lector back up on the FBI's most wanted list thanks to his wealth. Agent Starling(who is no longer a rookie, and it shows in her attitude/confidence), who after a shoot-out gone bad puts her in a hotspot with the DA, is pretty much forced to get back on the assignment. Through some witty detective work, she finds that Hannibal is currently living in Italy. Meanwhile, an Italian detective realizes who Lector is and goes to getting an award sum for his capture(the money being provided by Lector's ONLY surviving victim, brillantly played by Gary Oldman).

What happens next, you'll have to see for yourself.

Ridley Scott's direction is beautiful, and there is some jaw-dropping cinematography. The musical score, curtosy of Hans Zimmer, fits the movie perfectly. There is plenty good things about this movie, that haven't been given the proper credit, because of it's comparisons to Silence of the Lambs.

The DVD it'self is picture perfect. The extra's are plenty, and there is more than enough trailers to keep you busy. The behind the scenes segments are fun, especially the crowd reaction, and all the celeberties who attended the premiere party. The list of the special features are exactly what they sound like.

Overall, Hannibal is an extremely under-rated movie that, unfortunately, falls victim to it's constant comparrisons to Silence of the Lambs. This really isn't fair, because Silence of the Lambs is one of the most important horror films of all time, and Hannibal is not just a horror film, it falls into the many categories of horror, suspence, drama, and even romance. In comparison to Silence of the Lambs, it's really apples and oranges in this case.

I give this DVD 4 stars, because of the movie itself. But also the DVD has plenty of extras. Fans of DVD bonuses will not be dissapointed.

Rating:
Summary: for those with a brain (and who don't mind seeing one eaten)
Review: I personally don't know anything more scary than a killer who is smarter than me and believes that his murdering me is both moral and, if done properly, tasteful. This film is about degradation. People are complaining that the scene at the end is too disgusting and violent, etc, etc. I suppose it would be better if a depiction of a murder committed by a cannibal were made acceptable for general viewing. The bottom line is that this film pulls off what it is trying to: morality is created in the human intellect, and the human mind is, despite the societal boundaries and niceties it's engaged in everyday, little more than the primal animal brain. If you want to understand a criminal, understand that a criminal is an animal in rebellion against society. More than that you can't hope to know, even from consulting the quickest of criminal minds. This was the theme carried over from Silence of the Lambs.

That said, this is most certainly not the same movie. It's barely a sequel. There is not better or worse because there is little comparison. Standing on its own, this film has brilliant acting, writing, cinematography and directing. Furthermore, the thematic content is mind-boggling and not like any other representation of taboo/criminal acts that has been seen on the Big Screen before.

If you are offended by violence or human degradation or are a religious freak that wants to contrast this movie against all Hopkin's Christian-related movies in a biased review, don't go see this. I'm not sure why anyone like that would decide to lay down [money] for a ticket to see a horror movie about a cannibal anyway. But if that is the case, if you are looking for HOPEFUL cannibalism, I would suggest 'Alive!'.