Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: downer, big time
Review: After enjoying the previous movie ten years ago I found that this production deviated way too far from the Thomas Harris book. Had I not read the book "Hannibal" I would have been total confused. What happened to the ending in the book? I thought that was a perfect way to end "Starling's" carreer. They were together.... Also I thought that "Mason's" sister in the book played a very important part. Did she not feed Mason an eel at the end and kill him. Where was she in the movie? What a disappointment after Silence of the Lambs!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rating:
Summary: Better than the book; even better on DVD
Review: (3 and 1/2 stars) Free of the novel's lousy ending, the film version of "Hannibal" contains enough suspense and atmosphere to make it worth a viewing. Agent Starling's detective work is fairly involving, and some of the scenes are remarkable in the way they are constructed and their intensity. I'm thinking particularly of the "Cat and Mouse" scene where Starling pursues Lecter through the shopping mall. Even while I was repulsed by the "Dinner" scene near the end -- the only scene that justifies the kind of "gross-out" descriptions some critics gave the movie, it fit in well with the Lecter characters actions elsewhere and gave a measure of comeupance to Ray Liotta's character (certainly beyond what he deserved!). Taken as a whole, it was an entertaining flick, well directed by Ridley Scott and well acted, but nowhere near as great as "Silence of the Lambs."

As for the double-disc DVD edition, the director's commentary on the "feature" disc is fairly typical of such DVD commentaries. It does contain several interesting items of info. The 2nd "special features" disc is a cornucopia of background details, including dozens of movie poster variations, the usual "cast & crew" dossiers, 14 deleted or alternate scenes, etc. Definitely check out the "alternate ending" with Scott's comments, and decide for youself if you agree with the ending chosen for the film.

Rating:
Summary: It's not a sequel!
Review: This film has nothing in common with its predecessor "Silence Of The Lambs" except that Anthony Hopkins once again plays Hannibal Lecter with that same witty and delicious sense of cunning and all out swarm and overt sex appeal. This paints a much more even film thatn its "Silence...", where as in that film the whole atmosphere was swamped in a sort of thick unbearable nightmare. This film is more visually driven giving the viewer a rush with the eyes instead of with the mind. The director Ridley Scott does what James Cameron did with Aliens after Scott filmed the original. Scott uses the films score and dark pallette to give the viewer a sense of displacement in the key scenes of the film. The story is quite simple lecter escapes his to new lands where we find a troubled Starling (Moore) who must put him back behind bars. The film has a perverse game of cat and mouse between Starling and Lecter that has them at key scenes being each others worst nightmares and at others being their saviors! Interms of sheer viewer involvement this film more than out does the original. Just watch the criss cross between columns and rained soaked cobbled streets as a niave pickpocket goes after Lecter only to be done away with. The story is dark, witty, gruesome, sexy and visually spectacular and does more than a great job of holding its own in cinema. If one is looking for the mind games and claustrophobic ambience of "Silence Of The Lambs" than watch that fillm instead.

Rating:
Summary: DISTRACTING GORE, GREAT DVD SET!
Review: I watched Hannibal with a fresh mind for a new story about Dr. Lector. The movie was interesting, but, only half of the gore seemed to work. The last gory scene, where the brain is shown, sent me detouring from the story to what were the filmakers thinking???? NO GORE SHOULD SEND YOUR MIND AWAY FROM A MOVIE, BUT SHOULD BE USED TO SEND YOU DEEPER INTO IT. Gore is a tool, which is abused in Hannibal. The savers of this movie were the actors. The script wasen't very bad, but would have been scarier with less gore. Also, it wouldn't have been hard to put in a little more thought. The 2 disc set though is deeply satisifyng for special features with multiangle features and tons of trailers and posters and making of features. To leave you off with, don't watch Hannibal expecting much, and you will walk away satisfied....

Rating:
Summary: Too Nasty!
Review: Hannibal Dr. Cannibal. I can't believe anyone can sit through this movie. It's too sickening. I've seen horror films that are equally disturbing without Cannibalism. All I can say is the film will most certainly convert meat lovers into vegetarians. My Advice steer clear if you're too sensitive and faint hearted!

Rating:
Summary: A compelling sequel to the original masterpiece.
Review: In the sequel to the 1991 Academy Award Winning film, "The Silence of the Lambs", Ridley Scott (Gladiator, Alien) sits in the director's chair aspiring a new gore fest sequel featuring the return of Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Academy Award Winner Anthony Hopkins), the canibalistic psychiatrist now roaming freely in Italy. Under the name of Dr. Fell, Lecter's case is reopened after un-faced Mason Verger (Gary Oldman) seeks revenge upon him for his face being totally dismantled. F.B.I. Agent Clarice Starling returns, this time played by Julianne Moore, after receiving a letter from Hannibal, she also begins to search him when learning that an Inspector Pazzi has discovered Lecter's being in Italy. Pazzi as well, wants to capture Dr. Lecter for the $3,000,000.00 reward. Though, the doc just might have a plan of his own, to seek out his beloved Clarice, and toy with her brain once more. In doing so, the silence has been broken.

Of course, anyone which is almost everyone who enjoyed the first fright-fest original, Jonathan Demme's "Silence of the Lambs", then learning that a sequel from acclaimed director Ridley Scott, was being put into action, we all long awaited the return of Dr. Hannibal "The Cannibal." We expected it to have the same scope as the original, of course because it was being helmed by the one and only Ridley, himself. What began to draw back audiences was Jodie Foster not returning to her as Clarice Starling, instead being replaced by Julianne Moore. Well February 9th, 2001 came, and audiences flocked to the theater to see the doc eat some human flesh once more, but half the audience was displeased, being it was a complete turn to the story of Hannibal Lecter, and that he didn't have the same spine tingling effect of the first. Even while audiences got a new slice of the doc, they felt it was just a sequel filled with gore that was supposed to turn them on. Pulling in $200,000,000.00 though, was a gold mine for the sequel.

I have to admit that I was impressed with this sequel, being Anthony Hopkins brought a new light to himself, and you finally see that there is at least a tad bit of care in his heart. He will still slash and bite for a good time, but he loves Clarice Starling so much, that for those of you who have seen the end of this film, you know what I'm talking about. He was still a spine tingling character, still had those words of kindness, as well as those dark words of terror. That cracking fearsome smile still remained. The calamity of Gary Oldman's disgusted Mason Verger character was unique, as well nasty. How could one cut his own face off with a shard of glass just because a crazed psychiatrist tells him to? Maybe it's just the power in Hopkins' voice.

While delightful, but just not a wonderful as hoped, Julianne Moore takes over for the magnificent Jodie Foster. Moore's southern accent is nowhere near as good as Jodie's was. Jodie was very believable and convincing, while Moore is missing a believable piece to the way she portrayed Clarice. If Foster had returned, audiences would probably be raving about this film. Moore was obviously not the right pick to replace Foster. MGM should've waited on production if Foster's schedule was so busy.

Director Ridley Scott directs a star-cast group, and weaves in Thomas Harris's novel quite nicely, except for the gore-filled, gross out, surprise ending. Now I have read the book "Hannibal", and I just saw the film today, and have to admit that I was much more into the film. It took me to the same world "Silence" did, which to me is a very positive account. I still felt that same feeling of thrills, especially when Lecter had on his face-guarding mask from the first film, than I realized that I was watching a great sequel to an original. Scott's crafting of this intelligent suspense thriller is absolutely phenomenal as well engaging. The story really picks you up from your seat, and you can feel the reality of Dr. Lecter. Ridley Scott is obviously a wonderful director, and knows what a sequel needs. There was basically no strong profanity, no real nudity (except for drawings) and no sexual content. It's the gory gruesome violence that plugged this film into the "R" rated category, which it very well deserved. I can understand Ridley's feel to make this film have a bigger gore count than the original, to show audiences a lot more than anything they'd seen before. Scott's directing ability, though, is fantastic, and so is this sequel he has directed, which is worthy to the original.

With Foster not being present for the sequel, it fails to fascinate most audiences like the original did. While Hopkins'performance is "to die for", Julianne Moore isn't good enough to play Clarice, which flopped the film's success with the critics' and audiences' likeness. Ridley Scott's timing was perfect for this film (10 years later), but if waiting was needed for Foster, they should've waited. The plot was fabulous for a strong "sequel" which captures the same wit of "Silence of the Lambs", but performance wasn't all there. As though for Anthony Hopkins, we were just awaiting to here one more time: "Hello Clarice."

"Hannibal does deserve five stars, being one of the best sequels this year. This is one that lives up to its original, but needed to keep the same stars in the roles they belonged in- basically I'm talking about Jodie Foster. Try HANNIBAL if you can handle strong gore violence, but otherwise, pass on it."- MJV & the Movies.

Rating:
Summary: Art and entertainment versus social responsibility
Review: First of all, you can't compare "Hannibal" with "Silence of the Lambs". It has to be taken on its own terms AND on several levels. By this, I mean that you need to see it as a piece of cinema art (and art it IS, unquestionably), as a piece of entertainment; AND you have to see it and ask: "Do films like this benefit society by showing humanity in so debased a manner and by depicting acts of demoniac (and inventive) cruelty, in a world that is becoming increasingly violent and cruel?" What message does this send to young and impressionable minds, already lacking positive role models?

The acting and direction are excellent, as is the makeup. And the beauty of the Goldberg Variations and the Italian renaissance settings were in brilliant counterpoint to the hideous doings. It is that very same counterpoint, between artistic genius and hideous, unfathomable sadism, that makes the character of Hannibal so compelling, and here the film remains true to the book. The famous "dinner" scene, although about as gross as a movie could ever be, succeeds in capturing the same almost comical yet profoundly macabre imagery. And we were spared the ridiculous ending of the book.

I just wonder how many "harpy" knives are now going to appear in vicious real-life crimes?

Rating:
Summary: Horrible
Review: This was one of the most boring movies I have ever seen. It starts with Hannibal in Italy, and Sterling on executive review, possibly loosing her career. Very slow paced. The graphic seens were good, but they really didn't come till very late in the movie. I expected so much better. Was very disappointed.

Rating:
Summary: "HANNIBAL THE GREAT"
Review: I thought this movie was worth the wait.In fact,I tought it was better than the first! At first I was lleary about Julianne Moore taking over for "Jodie Foster";but she did This movie was GREAT! I was a little leary about it first because I wasn’t sure "Julianne Moore"could live up to "jodie Foster" as Clarise;but she did a great job.One WARNING!; if you sit down at home with your wife or girlfriend(or both) Have a [doggie] bag if they are queezie. I won’t tell you why, for I don’t want to ruin the movie for you. What I did is: I rented both "silence of the Lambs" & "Hannibal" on DVD; (which even makes the movies even better) This was one of the most goryest movies I have seen!! But the Plot & Acting was GREAT.** NOT RECCOMENDED FOR CHILDREN** I CAN’T STRESS THIS ENOUGH! THEY WILL HAVE NIGHTMARES FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES...

Rating:
Summary: Lack of attention to detail was VERY DISTURBING!
Review: I loved "Silence of the Lambs", so I was very curious to see the sequel. Unfortunantly, to me the movie comes off as being entirely unbelievable to an almost outrageous degree. Hannibal Lecter is supposed to be an extremely intelligent, resourceful man, yet he repeatedly makes very clumsy mistakes. Clarice had an interesting relationship with him, but I feel she would have never used lethal violence on others to rescue the "good cannibal" from a fate he rightly had coming to him. The man who once opened handcuffs with a small pork bone had to do what to his own hand to get out the second time around? One of my biggest complaints was the unforgivible lack of attention given to details. From a poorly written letter, to ridiculous high definition, widescreen "security camera footage", and an FBI website that uses a flashplayer "Warning: Do Not Enter" button. To make up for the outrageous lack of suspense or viable plot line, they decided to make the death scenes really graphic. And as a grand finale, they decided to make Hannibal's last gruesome murder a 100% impossibility. I think it's time for everybody's favorite cannibal to retire once and for all... he's starting to REALLY lose it.