Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: Not I expected
Review: After Silence of Lambs,this film is a bad surprise for me.

Rating:
Summary: "Anthony Hopkins returns to the big screen in HANNIBAL"
Review: They thought he was dead...they thought he was gone...they thought wrong!
Directed by Ridley Scott, "Hannibal" is the most talked about movie of the year. Anthony Hopkins resumes his role as Hannibal Lecter, and Julianne Moore (replacing Jodie Foster) is FBI Agent Clarice Starling who is suspended after a drug raid shootout goes horribly wrong. But Clarice can't stop thinking about Hannibal until that day when she recieves a letter from the demented, murderous cannibal. The FBI fins a single finger print on the letter but it's not enough. Meanwhile, in Italy, Hannibal Lecter is posing as the gentle, kind-hearted Dr. Fell, and the first one to stumble upon Fell/Lecter's secret is an Italian police officer named Pazzi, who ends up getting his stomach cut open by Lecter and hung over a balcony. The homeless and people on vacation watch in horror as Pazzi's intestines splatter onto the road. When Clarice finds out about Pazzi's death, then she's off to Italy, where she finds Hannibal ready to entice her into their old game of Cat and Mouse. But she isn't the only one out to catch "The Cannibal", another criminal is ready to stake his claim into the enigma that is Hannibal. The criminal is Mason Verger, Lecter's only surviving patient, who peeled off his own face due to Lecter's suggestions. Now Verger, who once was a notorious pedafile, wants revenge on Lecter. Now the manhunt for Hannibal is on, and Verger is quite certain that he can capture the good doctor, but so is Clarice. Join the adventure, action, and suspense. Director Ridley Scott added a distinctive tough to the video, although this one lacks the Buffalo Bill action like in the first. Ted Levine was good at being Bill. And like always, Anthony Hopkins is good at being Hannibal Lecter. The story slowly unfolds as Clarice is guided to his location by "The Cannibal" himself, Verger (unknown to Starling) is using Clarice as bait to catch Hannibal Lecter. Because of a request sent to Clarice by Mason for a little Q and A. Mason pretty much only talked about his sex-offences with children, but after he brief scolding by Starling he finally got to the point. Now Clarice wants Lecter more than ever, and Hannibal doesn't seem like such a bad guy in this movie, in one part he meets a little Asian boy and is very nice to him (besides the fact that he's a cannibalistic serial killer). Starling, Lecter, Verger, of these three brilliant minds, who's cunning will prevail?

Rating:
Summary: Missed opportunity
Review: The bad news is, they did a terrible job of turning the novel into a film. The good news is, maybe that means (if it's legally possible) someone someday will try to do it right? What makes you want to scream is not the scary movie; what makes you want to scream is the stupidity of actually filming the gypsy woman and actually filming the Botticelli "subplot" then cutting both of them out of the final film, with the usual directorial mumblings about Well, it didn't seem to advance the story - we just didn't need it (as we learn from the DVD special feature segment). But for the mood to be properly established, yes you do need it all: you need BOTH gypsies; you need the Botticelli "subplot" (which adds up to far more than Ridley Scott's condescending label suggests); and of course you need the nursing scene, the romance at the end, where it all begins to make a crazy kind of "sense" at last. As it stands, Hannibal the film, has about it the feel of a project where they kept toasting one another with champagne periodically and saying, in effect, "If we get a champagne buzz, then isn't our work good?" Fools rushing in where angels fear to tread, without ever having read the book. In this case, buy the novel (in hard cover, as it deserves) but don't even bother to rent the so-called movie out of idle curiosity. (I have nothing against a movie outshining its novelistic source material, by the way: Cape Fear is an example where the cinematic treatment - especially the later one with music by Bernard Herrmann - is so superior to the book that you have to wonder how that dreary little dime novel could ever have inspired such poetry on the screen. But with Hannibal, the relationship is sadly reversed: the novelist shows us exactly where the poetry resides, and the filmmaking team throws half of it away, rationalizing their every step, of course.)

Rating:
Summary: Decent but very flawed film of an awful book
Review: The book, "Hannibal" is the most depraved, disgusting work I have had the misfortune of reading. I kept thinking as I read it that it could not get worse, but it did. I HATED the book and was not really interested in seeing the film version of it. But I recently watched the magnificant "Silence of the Lambs" again and decided to see how a film could possibly have been made of "Hannibal". Anthony Hopkins and Jody Foster were so wonderful in "Silence" that I could not imagine how another actress could possibly play Clarice and have the same relationship and depth of emotions with Lecter even though she was now 10 years older with a lot more experience.

So with these prejudices, I watched "Hannibal". It was a decent film, but very flawed. So much had to be left out and so much was changed. The whole situation with Verger in the book was completely changed. In the book he could not leave his bed because his body had been shriveled and distorted by the hanging he went through during his session with Lecter. The only thing shown in the film was the result of his shaving his face off. The whole family situation with his lesbian sister was gone which was vital to his character. This meant that a whole new method of killing him was necessary. The fact that she killed him to gain the family fortune was gone plus the symbolism of his eel like body being fed to the large eel he kept as a pet. Much of his character was altered for the film. Also his make-up was less than satisfactory. I kept thinking how the make-up for the Phantom of the Opera in the stage musical would have been much for effective for Verger - more horrible and more in keeping with the idea of a face being removed. What is seen in the film is too obviously a mask. Gary Oldman's performance is lessened by this makeup. He is excellent but could have been even more effective in other make-up.

Anthony Hopkins is magnificent as Lecter and is the main reason to watch the film. His performance is multi-layered and always fascinating. He is the finest actor around today and always worth watching. One deleted scene on the DVD where he gets into Clarice's car and licks the steering wheel is chilling and riviting. But each of his scenes is magnetic, he doninates even those scenes when just his voice is heard.

Unfortunately Julianne Moore just does not make it as Clarice. She is, at best, only competant. She is acceptable in the role, but never plumbs the depths of the character. A viewer keeps wondering what the character could have been with Jody Foster. Her ghost dominates each of Clarice's scenes. Even Miss Moore's voice is a pale imitation of Miss Foster's.

One of the things that saves the film from the excesses of the book is that Clarice does not become Lecter's lover and waltz off on the patio with him as Krendler sits babbling at the table with the top of his head off as in the climax of the book. BUT the ending of the film with Lecter sharing the "lunch" with the little oriental boy on the plane is even more perverse and really more horrifing than anything else in the film.

After having rented the DVD, I will now purchase a copy to have as a companion to "Silence of the Lambs" and "Manhunter" so I will have the three Hannibal Lecter films, but it is the least satisfying of the three.

Rating:
Summary: It stinks!
Review: This movie stinks. Anyone who liked it has no taste.

Rating:
Summary: Nothing special, but a good sequel.
Review: While not up the best sequel, "Hannibal" is much more gory than its prequel "The Silence of the Lambs." Mason Verger, who peeled off his face, is out to catch Hannibal Lecter. But so is Clarice, Jodie Foster was better at acting than Julianne Moore, but Moore still did a pretty good job. My favorite part is when Clarice is unconsious in Hannibal's arms and it's showing their shadow as Lecter carries her to her home. At the end Lecter cuts of this guy's skull and there are his brains, right there sitting in the top of his head. I would recommend renting this movie before buying it, but if you want true Hannibal Lecter entertainment then watch "The Silence of the Lambs."

Rating:
Summary: it's not as good as Silence, of course, but it was good...
Review: I went into this movie not expecting anything, especially to the nature of Silence of the Lambs altitude. Hannibal wasn't a bad movie. However it was very predictable. The story line itself is just a "catch me if you can..." movie. No real base, no real plot.

I feel bad for Julianne Moore to try to replace Jodie Foster. Jodie Foster did a fantastic job in SotL. Don't get me wrong, Moore did a wonderful job but to fill Foster's role...just felt...odd to me.

Anthony Hopkins, I love and adore. His haunting voice carries out in this sequel. Hearing his voice sends shivers down my spine from "Silence..."...

I will opt to buy this movie, either VHS or DVD. I would recommend others to perhaps rent it first as it is definitely not as good as Silence of the Lambs if one REALLY expects it to be!! How many sequels are as good as the first? Not very many and therefore why should this be any different. Watch the movie to be entertained...try not to measure it up to SotL!!

Rating:
Summary: It is always good to try new things....
Review: This picture is wonderful.

Embracement of life establishes the beauty of this film. The similarities to the movie "Seven" are exoteric, even though the scope encompasses much more than simple righteousness.

Lecter and Starling are almost identical personalities. To employ the prestigious clinician's own diction, both are "hated" by the "weak." Both "believe in something," and are "envied" as a result of it. One can often observe how individuals of superior intellect, morality, creativity, and sentiment are mocked and regarded with contempt in the routinized, decadent banality that constitutes modern life. However, while Hannibal rejects this life, Starling exhibits loyalty towards her "masters" -- which could be taken to mean a number of things-- avarice, prestige, as well as her literal superiors. As Hannibal told Starling, "It's *you* I'm worried about."

Did I mention the acting, scenery, and music were well done?

Hannibal Lecter embraces Bach, art, literature, love -- if anything, he is the total human "being" -- "be" the meaningful verb of course. Meanwhile, Mason Verger (Gary Oldman) is replete with superstition, hedonism, and petty revenge. The Italian detective Rinaldo Lazzi is willing to risk a beautiful wife and a nice life out of sordid, inordinate avarice. Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta) is Starling's superior and the most despicable figure in the film-- not only does he ridicule art, fine eating, the symbolic-- but fulfills his lust for power in a manner that comports with his utter stupidity and rancid egoism.

Attending with a fine insight into the deeper meaning of things obviously is uncommon. Yet it may be the most human of qualities.

This movie is a gore-filled, distorted, subtle cousin to Beauty and the Beast. Hannibal is "Beauty," of course. Ta-ta!

Rating:
Summary: Let It Stand On It's Own!
Review: One noticable thing about all the negative reviews of Hannibal is that people compare it to Silence Of The Lambs. Hannibal is a completely different film in every way! Now let me say that Silence of The Lambs is one of my favorite films of all-time. But the thing is this, Sotl is a psychlogical-thriller, Hannibal is a darkly comedic love-story. In that retrospect it is excellent. From Hans Zimmers haunting score, to John Mathisen managing to make Florence Italy look bleak and outstanding set designs, Hannibal is among the highest in it's class. The dvd also features outstanding commentary for film buffs, excellent production video's and deleted scenes that further interest in the film. Well worth your money!

Rating:
Summary: Disgusting and an insult to the movies
Review: This is probably the most disgusting movie I have ever seen. All of this is throughout the movie and I can not believe that people paid to see this movie. I was anxious to see this, but never got around to it. once I rented it on DVD though, i was glad I didn't spend six bucks to see this movie. The end is the most disgusting thing I have seen in years. What saves this movie is the brilliant performance of Anthony Hopkins. He should be nominated for an Oscar. Julianne Moore is dry ans boring as Clarice. If you enjoyed Silence of the Lambs, rent this just to see another part of the story. Do not buy it though if you truly like it.