Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: Romance? Terrifying? I think not.
Review: First, let's get this straight. HANNIBAL is NOT a romance. In a romance, you have a well-defined relationship between the man & woman; they usually have to face troubles in the middle of the story; and then, by the end, they overcome those difficulties and become a couple that will live on in the reality of fiction. But the main key is that you have TWO WILLING PARTNERS in this relationship. That just ain't so in HANNIBAL. So trust me, dear readers, this is NOT in any way, shape, or form a romance.

Second, for those of you who stated in your reviews that this book will terrify you, keep you up at night, make sleep difficult, etc., etc.--you must have been reading a different HANNIBAL than I did.

To be scared, you must truly care about the characters being terrorized. Who CARES what happened to Pazzi, Carlo, Mason, or Paul? Tearing them apart, torturing them, eating them--NONE of that is terrifying if you don't care about the characters and what happens to them. All Harris succeeded in making me do was cringe. That's it. I definitely won't be losing any sleep over this story. I most certainly won't have nightmares.

Third, one other person who read this book told me that he cheated & read the ending w/about 100 pages left in the story. It made this person so MAD that he couldn't finish the story.

I had to read HANNIBAL for myself to understand why he felt the way that he did. For those of you who loved those last 100 pages, I must go back to my original mantra--surely you must have read a different HANNIBAL than the one I did.

The most ironic review among the readers here is the one who derisively said that Harris must have written this in 11 days (rather than years) and then couldn't figure out a way to *fix* his story, so he just gave it to the publishers earlier this year & demanded that NOT a word be touched/edited. (It shows)

Honesty is the best policy; don't throw your money away on the hardback of HANNIBAL. If you feel compelled to read this story, get it from your library, go to a UBS, borrow it from an enemy (a *true* friend won't loan you this), buy it @ 50% off (thus, allowing you to face yourself in the mirror in the morning), or wait for it in paperback.

For those of you who loved HANNIBAL and think it's the absolute greatest story, I have to wonder if you read the same HANNIBAL that I did.

Rating:
Summary: I wanted to put it down, but couldn't...
Review: The plot was absurd, the characters (mostly) loathsome, the ending defied logic. And yet... I haven't been as engrossed by a work of fiction since "The Stand" (interesting that King raved about 'Hannibal' in the NY Times).

The book moves speedily and twists its way from scene to scene, outrageous and over-the-top. Man-eating pigs and eels? A table-side lobotomy that provides sweetbreads for popular literature's oddest-ever dinner party? A one-eyed paralyzed madman friend of Idi Amin who directs much of what happens? The book is bizarre in the extreme, yet Harris pulls it off, more or less. He writes with elegance and a cool detachment that makes the horror that unfolds all the more visceral, and somewhat more plausible. He's a master of the "telling detail" and sets a scene with descriptive power that rivals that of PD James. Light is shed on the source of Lecter's lunacy, yet it does not diminish his darkly fiendish power. And the extended passage in Florence makes for suspenseful reading, indeed.

Still, Newsweek reports that Harris won't let his editor touch a word. Too bad. Reading this almost-magnificent mess convinced me the author needed a disciplined hand to better justify the denouement, and excise the silliness that keeps this good read from being a great book.

Rating:
Summary: A nasty joke - and it's on us
Review: Unfortunately, those before me have pretty much summed up all that is wrong with this thing, from cardboard characters, to rambling plot lines, to some seriously questionable editing. But enough about this book; now we have to fret about the film! What amazes me is that 'Hollywood' has already paid millions for the film rights, but I understand Mr. Demme has already passed on this impossible directing job. Let's just hope the actors who gave us such a sublime thriller in 'Silence' will take flight from whatever one could possibly conjure in trying to transfer this to celluloid. And by the way: have you noticed how most of the critics have bought this Emperor's 'new clothes'?

Rating:
Summary: I waited 11 years for this over-hyped yet disgusting book?
Review: I never really understood all the acclaim that the film "Silence of the Lambs" received from critics, public, Oscars etc. I finally decided that it was all due to what I must admit was the only Oscar worthy aspect of the film, Anthony Hopkins performance as Hannibal Lecter. When I heard that Thomas Harris would once again visit the character of Dr. Lecter, I was curious to see how the doctor had been doing - or rather what Anthony Hopkins would be doing. After finishing "Hannibal", my initial belief that "Silence of the Lambs" was indeed due to Hopkins and nothing else. It is my hope that no one involved with that film has anything to do with the film of "Hannibal" that we all know will get made one way or the other. Jonathan Demme has already indicated a probable no because of the book being too violent. There is no plot-only sections to present either Harris' knowlege of food, Florence, weapons, disgusting torture ideas etc. The turns the book takes are either so predictable or vile. I came away from "Silence" with some respect/appreciation for Hannibal/Hopkins. With "Hannibal", I got only regrets that I fell for the hype trap. This book was a waste of time, money, brains and possible good characters - if Harris had only put both his 11 years and limited writing skills to better use. Maybe this time he will make it twice as long between his next book - I'm praying that he will.

Rating:
Summary: Mr. Harris, sir, you are NOT above having an editor
Review: Okay, I just finished the highly anticipated HANNIBAL, and I tell you, it's a lot like WHITE OLEANDER in that it desperately NEEDED an editor (the story is that Thomas Harris, the author, wouldn't allow an editor to work w/the story before it went to publication). He shifted back & forth between present & past tense so much that I wanted to reach through the pages & slap him (Harris, not Hannibal). He also did a lot of shifting between first (we, I, me), second (you), and third (he, she, it, they) persons. Drove me batty and it took away from the story. This is a story that's crying for an editor; shame on Harris for believing he was above one.

While HANNIBAL is not a pleasant story to read, I still think that Shirley Kennett's GRAY MATTER is more gruesome--and even better, it's a well-written story. In HANNIBAL, Harris almost tries to overdue it w/the gruesomeness--thus, it lost a lot of its effectiveness on me.

But the main thing that drove me crazy was the ending. I hated it. Absolutely, positively HATED it.

I cannot tell you WHY I hated it because then I'd be spoiling it for those who decide they'll read this story. Even *I* am not that cruel.

Let me put it this way--if we are to TRULY BELIEVE in HANNIBAL's ending--then we have to realize that the characters in Thomas Harris's world are frauds.

I wish Amazon allowed for ***spoiler*** areas so that I could explain what I mean by "frauds." Unfortunately, w/out spoiling the story, you'll have to read it & decide for yourself.

IF they make this into a movie, this is ONE situation in which Hollywood SHOULD change the ending, otherwise I cannot see a single reason for revisting Hannibal's & Clarice's worlds.

Rating:
Summary: "Disturbing"
Review: In his other books, Thomas Harris separates the good from the bad. In "Hannibal", we are shown only the dark side of the human spirit. Characters unable to move beyond their inner pain. Believing the only opiate is retribution. This book will take you to a different hell then "Dante's Inferno" This hell is real.

Rating:
Summary: Best Course of a Three Course Meal!
Review: Just like a gourmet dinner, Harris has prepared a three course meal, saving the best for dessert. Hannibal, the book, is immensely satisfying because it ends the only way it should. A reading of the first two installments leads you to question exactly who is the monster here. Harris answers it beautifully in this very good read. I highly recommend it.

Rating:
Summary: I didn't get what I expected!
Review: I'm truly dissapointed with the change in Clarice Starling. It is not believable, and it leaves me unsatisfied, as thought the last hundred pages were written under pressure of a deadline, or the author just got tired of the subject.

Rating:
Summary: Very good, but not quite up to the first two
Review: I thoroughly enjoyed the book, but I do have one criticism. The most chilling aspect of the first two novels is that they both felt entirely possible. In "Hannibal," Harris stretches the bounds of plausibility more than a few times. This allowed me to distance myself a bit from the story which lessened the impact. Don't take that as a knock at the ending with which so many other reviewers seem to be troubled. The ending is completely unpredictable and yet, in Harris' own dark world-view, also completely logical. It will be interesting to see what Hollywood does with this material. I doubt the major studios would have the stomach for a faithful adaptation.

Rating:
Summary: Outrageous.
Review: For the first 80% of the book I kept asking myself why was I reading such trash. I think I perservered because I had Jodi Foster and Tony Hopkins well planted in my mind. The ending, however, is a true home run and makes it worth reading. I haven't laughed so hard in a very long time.