Reviews & Ratings for
Hannibal More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 133:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

1323 reviews in total

---

106 out of 152 people found the following review useful:
Good, but not great, 12 February 2001
Author: webgrunt from location, location.

Anthony Hopkins gave an impeccable performance. However, the material he was given to work with was not as good as Silence of the Lambs. In fairness, perhaps there was no way it could be. In SOTL, he was somehow more foreboding, more of a sort of superhuman monster; in Hannibal, he's more accessible, a guy you meet on the street. Maybe it was impossible to maintain the mystery of Lecter that we saw in SOTL because of the risk of doing a rehash. I'd give the overall Dr Lecter character a 9 of 10 in this film, vs. a 10 of 10 in the last one. Not quite as good, but still very good.

Starling's character, on the other hand, fell flat in this film. In SOTL, Foster perfectly portrayed Starling's flat surface with a turbulent depth; in Hannibal, there was nothing under her surface. Foster's Clarice evoked feelings of sympathetic grief, Moore's Clarice evoked nothing. I do not necessarily blame Moore, this could be due to writing and/or directing. Obviously, though SOTL focused mainly on Starling's character, Hannibal focuses on, well, Hannibal. Still, that's no excuse for what was done to Starling. Her character gets a 3 of 10.

The story was much weaker in Hannibal than in SOTL. It almost seemed like an excuse to present us with the characters, rather than a story in and of itself. Still, it had no other major flaws, so it gets a 6 of 10.

Now, there's another category I'll call the shock factor. It's different than ordinary gore, it's... creative gore. The sick, disgusting depravity we expect to see and like to see in this type of film. I can't go into detail without spoiling it, but I'll have to say it goes even beyond what I expected. Do not watch this film if you are squeamish or dislike gore. There isn't a lot of gore in the film, but what there was, was... concentrated. Shock Factor, 10 of 10.

Overall I give the film an 8 of 10. Very well done with a few weaknesses, well worth watching.

---

91 out of 140 people found the following review useful:
A lot to chew on, 5 December 2003
Author: Brian W. Fairbanks (brianwfairbanks@yahoo.com) from United States

Many people were disappointed or flat-out disgusted by Ridley Scott's follow-up to "The Silence of the Lambs." I can certainly understand their disgust, but I preferred this to its Oscar winning predecessor. It had been a long, long time since a movie made me turn from the screen in genuine horror, and I didn't believe it was even possible. "Hannibal"'s deservedly controversial climax took me by surprise. It may have been revolting (okay, it was very definitely revolting) but so few movies these days have any lasting impact and I appreciate that this one did. And it is, after all, about a cannibal, is it not? At some point in a series of films about a man of Lector's inclinations, we should see him at work.

Of course, the horror of the climax is effective because the rest of the film is so good. Hopkins, a little chunkier than the last time we saw him in this role, positively exudes menace especially in his final confrontation with Pazzi (an excellent Giancarlo Giannini whose sad eyes make him the most sympathetic character in the film). Then there's Gary Oldman's Mason Verger who is so contemptible that he never elicits sympathy no matter how he suffered at the hands of Lector. And Julianne Moore is an improvement over Jodie Foster who I have always believed was overrated.

But the best thing about "Hannibal" is the atmosphere in which Scott and his team envelop the story. A cloud of dread hangs over this film, and beautiful Florence, Italy, though still beautiful, appears haunted by Lector's very presence in the city.

---

46 out of 61 people found the following review useful:
Hannibal, 22 May 2006

Author: tonyhu from Edinburgh, United Kingdom

I like this film a lot, but of course it suffers - as all sequels do - by comparison to its predecessor, in this case 'Silence of the Lambs' The main reason for having a sequel at all was to showcase again the character of Hannibal Lecter, a monstrous creation everyone wanted to see more of after the first film. It could have bombed badly therefore if writer and actor had let us down by failing to catch the magic again. It was after all a decade after the original was made. But they don't, and Anthony Hopkins turns in another delicious performance as the man with the evil intent cloaked in inestimable, menacing charm.

Julianne Moore drew the short straw in having to re-create the Clarice Starling role that had been so memorably played by another actress. She does well in my opinion, but inevitably we keep thinking 'where is Jodie Foster?', and this lends her portrayal a lack of credibility which is entirely unfair. Gary Oldman's Mason Verger is suitably loathsome and manages to make Lecter seem almost like the hero in their battle of wits. If there is a weak link, Ray Liotta's Krendler seems a bit misplaced.

The direction deserves special mention. The lush, beautiful settings are mocked by the horror of what is happening in them and the perfectly-selected atmospheric music stayed in my mind long after the film had ended.

Once again, the film lacks realism, but as with the original, it doesn't matter. Of course things like this don't really happen - but so what? It's a film. Get over it! I was prompted after seeing it to read the books, and the right decision was made in changing the ending of this story from that written by Thomas Harris.

We were subsequently treated to another look at Lecter in a decent prequel movie, 'Red Dragon,' but I will not be alone in hoping that some day we will see yet more of him in a further instalment. Unlikely I suspect - but not impossible.

---

51 out of 74 people found the following review useful:
Much More Than Brain Food, 1 February 2006

Author: ccthemovieman-1 from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have to go against popular opinion on this one. Most people hate this film; I love it....well, 95 percent of it, anyway.

The shame of it is that most people only remember the last 10 minutes, a totally gruesome scene in which the top of a man's head is cut off and he's fed a morsel of his own brain. Of course, it's disgusting and I don't find it easy to watch, either.

However, the first two hours of the film offers a feast, if you'll pardon the pun, for the eyes and ears that is not revolting except for one other three-second shot. This is one of the most beautifully-filmed movies I've ever seen. Scene after scene is just jaw dropping and features some of the best shots, outside and inside, of Florence, Italy, you could ever imagine. Ridley Scott is known for his stylish direction and that is certainly the case here.

The dialog is fascinating, led by Anthony Hopkins' famous "Hannibal Lecter" character, whose vocabulary and intelligent sarcasm and baiting are clever and entertaining to hear. Unlike "Silence Of the Lambs," there is little verbal crudeness in this film, very little profanity at all. On the third viewing, I played this with the English subtitles on, so I could catch all the dialog.

This was a much lower-key film than it's famous predecessor, which probably disappointed a lot of people who prefer a lot more violence and f-words in their crime movies.

Although Jodie Foster performed well in the role of FBI Agent Clarice Starling, I preferred watching and listening to Julianne Moore play the part in this film. A "sleeper" here, too, was the great performance by Giancarlo Gianni, as the greedy Italian lawman, who winds up paying a huge price for his avarice.

Like "Godfather III," this is a very unjustly-criticized and overlooked third installment of a famous film trilogy.

---

58 out of 97 people found the following review useful:
A Pleasure!, 8 March 2001

Author: Clarice-5 from Victoria, Canada

Hannibal is a pure pleasure! While a little unevenly paced (the beginning was a bit slow), David Mamet and Steve Zallian have done a good job of telling the basic story Thomas Harris gave to us - and, incidently, the book was incredibly underrated by critics whose thought processes seem to have been damaged by too little quality literature. People have complained that it took ten years for Harris to write it - well, read it! It is chock-a-block full of mythology, astronomical and religious themes that weave their way throughout. The threads never break. The movie would have had to be eight hours long to even begin to explore the depths plumbed by Harris in the book.

Anthony Hopkins is, as usual, brilliant! Julianne Moore was sexy and strong. Giancarlo Giannini was outstanding and Gary Oldman creditable. My only complaint with casting was Ray Liotta, who just didn't have "it".

Having seen this movie three times thus far, I will say that watching it is like peeling layers off an onion. You see more and more with each viewing - little treasures and nuggets that you find almost by accident. The first time I saw it, I left the theatre not really knowing what I thought of it. Then I found myself smiling. I did like it. When I went back again (and again!) I liked it more and more.

Gory? Not really - and I consider myself pretty sensitive to gore. I have seen far worse. The story does have violence in it, and I think Ridley Scott, while depicting an integral part of the story, handled the violence tastefully (if you'll pardon the expression).

Is it as good as Silence of the Lambs? No. It's DIFFERENT from SotL. In Silence we had a caged monster whose intensity was extremely focussed. Here, we have a monster who is on the loose in a great big world, free to indulge in his passions. Hannibal Lecter's essence has not changed. He's merely in a different situation.

My only disappointments were: The changed ending. This was the major one. I realize the critics lambasted Thomas Harris for the ending in the book, saying "Clarice would never have done that", but Clarice was the child of Harris' imagination. The author is god, and if god says a character will do something, who are we to second-guess?

The length of the movie. It could have been a little longer and more focus could have been put on the relationship between Hannibal and Clarice - specifically, his obsession with her, and the time they spent together after the fiasco at the Verger Estate.

It was also too bad that Mason Verger's sister, Margot, was written out of the script.

All in all, though, I thoroughly enjoyed the dark humor and the adventure. Hans Zimmer's score is magnificent! This is a really good film - not a great film, but a really good one. Don't go into it expecting to see another Silence of the Lambs. It's not - and I don't think anyone has ever tried to claim that it is. Expect to see a weird and wonderful love story and an adventure! (It's just too bad about that ending!)

---

54 out of 91 people found the following review useful:
Its very good, so see it on the big screen., 20 February 2001

Author: louise2104 from Hampshire, England

I haven`t been affected this much by a movie in years, so that must be considered good value for money. The controversial gore scene towards the end made myself, and the majority of the audience, flinch, scream and nervously giggle simultaneously (a feel good/feel bad movie rolled into one!).

Having never read the original book I took the film at face value. It is beautifully filmed by a talented director and crew, and features lovely Italian location scenes which contrast with the grim plot. The acting is mainly excellent. Hopkins character appears creepier due to him beginning to resemble a kindly grandad, who suddenly turns and eats your brain. Julianne Moore`s excellent Clarice vaguely reminded me of Ripley, the star of Ridley Scotts masterpiece Alien. At worst, the rest of the cast were well above average.

The film had me captivated with its style, twisty plot, acting and gore. I found myself slightly rooting for the baddie Hannibal at some points, something I haven`t experienced since my empathy for evil Alex in A Clockwork Orange. If people find the deaths of some characters predictable, then maybe Scott has directed well in projecting Hannibal`s approach and morality.

This is the sort of big budget horror film movie-goers have been waiting for, so go see it on the large screen before its too late! Okay, it is not the same as Silence, so what? Ten years have passed and things have changed. I`ve heard the book is better. Well, I may now read it, but in the meantime I have enjoyed an excellent, thought provoking Film Of The Year!

---

25 out of 42 people found the following review useful:
Doesn't come close to the quality of the original, but Anthony Hopkins's performance saves the movie. *** (out of four), 15 February 2001

Author: Blake French (baffilmcritic@cs.com) from USA

HANNIBAL / (2001) *** (out of four)

By Blake French:

Some movies are born to inspire sequels but "The Silence of The Lambs" is a movie that does not need a sequel. The Academy Award winning thriller earned ubiquitous critical acclaim, therefore a continuation is nearly incapable of living up to its standards. To make things worse for the highly anticipated sequel "Hannibal," the original film's director and main star bailed out, leaving Ridley Scott ("Gladiator") and Julianne Moore ("Magnolia") filling their places in the credits. It is hard to imagine how this movie could possibly succeed. But the exceptionally beautiful filmmaking, strong performances, intriguing story, and moody atmosphere provoke more nail-biting moments than most thrillers these days.

The story of "Hannibal" does not compare with "The Silence of the Lambs." It replaces tension-filled sequences of psychological terror with scenes featuring some of the most grotesque images and realistic gore to ever make its mark on the big screen. This film relies heavily on the shock factor of such extreme graphic violence, although such content is never excessive or relentless. It has perfect timing. The sheer presence of Anthony Hopkins, in another horrific and career defining performance, often creates enough terror for several movies. "Hannibal" knows that and frequently gives the character more freedom than he had in he first film. But I am not so sure that is a good thing; is it more terrifying listening to Hannibal Lecter discuss his disgusting actions or to actually see him perform such disturbing behaviors?

The film takes place ten years after FBI agent Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster then, Julianne Moore now) interviewed convicted mass murdering cannibal Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) while searching for another disturbed killer. Present day: Clarice is involved with a drug bust shoot-out that leaves many dead. Justice Dept. Official Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta), is about to punish her when she gets a call from a the unrecognizably deformed surviving victim of an attack by Lecter. His name is Mason Verge (Gary Oldman), a wealthy recluse who asks that Starling be placed back on the case of the Cannibal, who has been on the loose for ten years.

The movie investigates a lot more than Clarice's experiences with Hannibal Lecter. The script actually consists of two separate stories, one detailing the revenge scheme of Mason, whom is still angry with Lecter after he caused the removal of his face and partial paralysis. The other takes place in Italy, where an inspector named Rinaldo Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini) is out to claim a multimillion dollar reward for providing authorities with proper evidence leading to the arrest of a local, who turns out to be none other than Lecter himself. Obviously this man does not know what he is in for, and ends up losing his cuts for the money…literally.

Parallel stories are always interesting, but are easily sidetracked with certain characters and or events. What keeps this movie intriguing is the consistent focus on Lector; everything in the story seems to revolve around him. Then again, "Hannibal" is also quite pointless because it solves nothing. Without giving away the ending, I will say that we are once again left pondering about Lecter. Most any movie that provokes thoughts is worth seeing, but "Hannibal" forgets the first film, takes a stand on its own, and once again sets us up for another unnecessary follow-up.

The most apparent conflict many audiences with have with "Hannibal" is the absence of Jodie Foster. Julianne Moore is most definitely a capable and challenging actress, and plays the role of Starling with exuberance and clarity. But Foster is simply better in the role and we miss her dearly. Anthony Hopkins saves the movie; the actor is so intense and grisly in his subtle and classy manner, he once again qualifies as an award nominee. Thank goodness he returned for the role; without Hopkins, "Hannibal" would be nothing but underdone carnage.

---

26 out of 44 people found the following review useful:
Silly And Uneven, 3 January 2003

Author: Theo Robertson from Isle Of Bute, Scotland

I don`t know if it existed in the novel of SILENCE OF THE LAMBS but the impression I got from that film was that Clarice Starling was very uncomfortable in the presence of men . This character trait is totally ignored in HANNIBAL as the film opens with Agent Starling asleep in a police van surrounded with men and as the film continues we see that the Clarice Starling of this version is a strong willed and assertive woman at odds with the timid insecure girl of the 1991 film . I guess some people may say this is character development but I`d call it a lack of internal continiuty and I wasn`t too happy with the way the character was underused either.

Julianne Moore made little impression with her portrayal of Starling though that`s through little fault of her own because it`s always the most difficult job of an actor playing a role made famous by someone else , and as I said Starling is sidelined in much of the film . But still I would have liked to have seen Jodie Foster return to the part . As for the other actors Hopkins is competent but by no means spell binding , Liota gives the impression that a robot played his role throughout the film and not just in * THAT * scene , Giancarlo Giannini is good , but Gary Oldman absolutely steals the show as Mason Verger playing the role just the right side of camp complete with some great make up .

As for the other aspects of HANNIBAL Ridley Scott directs with an almost operatic touch , and I mean that both figuratively and literally . You really do get the feeling watching this that Scott`s ambition in life is to do a remake of AMADEUS with Hopkins in the role of Atonio Salieri . But the one major flaw with HANNIBAL is the script by Mamet and Zaillian . Again I have little idea of what the novel is like since my entire knowledge of it is confined to what I`ve read about it on this site but a couple of screenwriters with their great track record should be able to produce a satisfying screenplay no matter how poor the source novel . Here they fail , especially with the ending which is riducously over the top . But it was probably a good idea to omit Verger`s lesbian sister as this would have made the film descend into a camp joke

---

22 out of 38 people found the following review useful:
Hannibals Return, 14 February 2007

Author: gc2000ad-1 from United Kingdom

This was a good sequel - Hannibal returning brought me goosebumps once again with him out of jail at large..Thats bloody fun to me having a serial killer missing for 10 years and returns caused by an old patient of his wants revenge.

However - He gets Clarice involved the dangerous game where she has been looking for him for a long time since after shooting Buffalo Bill. One thing is I wasn't too sure about Moore as Clarice - She was good, but we all like the same actress to play the same person in the story's.

Anyway - Gary Oldman as the villain was superb..evil, twisted and absolute rich..

Good Sequel Indeed!! "Your brother smells just as bad as you do" - Hannibal Lector

---

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
A Typical Hollywood Serial Killing, 12 April 2007

Author: zippyflynn2 from Los Angeles, United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Yup, they did it again. Between the sanitized ending: agent Starling became a cannibal in the book but is an unconvincing righteous crusader in this turkey (an essential and main theme the author uses throughout his books is what makes a truly great detective is their ability to think and be somewhat of the same cloth as those they hunt) and the miscast Julianne Moore who really stinks up the scenes with her phony flat floundering; Hollywood has killed another serial. Sir Anthony gives a fine performance with the flawed material he was given and Gary Oldman and Ray Liotta and some others are all excellent but they cannot keep this vessel from missing the mark completely. Once again the Hollywood execs involved with this have kept their jobs by hiring all the "right" people, so even if it had bombed at the box office they could claim they were not responsible because they hired all the "right" people. Unfortunately not enough of them were the right ones for this specific job. Besides one of the essential leads being a terrible and inappropriate choice, Ms. Moore, the integral story changes were idiotically formulaic, essentially burning all the bridges for thought the author had built and that had been kept intact in "The Silence of the Lambs" movie. Did Mamet REALLY write this? Or is he just the writer of record and it was destroyed by too many cooks (other writers) fooling around with the recipe? Why does Hollywood always do this? If a theme is "too dark" or "too depressing" do a different film for chrissake. Don't destroy the heart of something to make it more palatable for the bland masses. Hey I have an idea, instead of Dr. Lecter being a serial killer let him be a man who likes to eat lots of CEREAL. Yeah, that way you can make this into a cartoon for kids on Saturday morning too! Think of the marketing possibilities, tying it in with Cheerios or how about LIFE cereal? Wow, maybe the studio execs missed their chance to REALLY cash in. Shhhh, very quietly now, don't repeat this, otherwise the remake they do because they're all too cowardly to try a real new theme but instead rehash proved "box office" that they "rewrite" for the masses will be worse than what I just said.

---

---

Page 1 of 133:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user reviews	Your vote history