I don't understand why this movies gets this much of enthusiastic reactions by the IMBD-members. I didn't like it that much. First of all, the story was not interesting. In fact, a good plot was missing. 'Hannibal' lacks surprises, psychological depth and real people and emotions. Liotta and Goldman's characters were nothing but caricatures, and Hannibal Lecter has lost much of his creepy manners. Ridley Scott made some great movies, but I don't think he got any little bit involved in making this, emotionally I mean. So I wonder where the 'soul' of this movie is. Everyone involved in the making of 'Hannibal' probably assumed this was going to be a great movie, so they forgot to make the efforts for it.
And then the actors. Hopkins is never bad, but if you compare his performance to those in 'Titus', 'Remains of the Day' and especially 'Silence of the Lambs', this isn't a great performance. And although I like Julianne Moore a lot (Boogie Nights! End of the Affair! Big Lebowski!), this role was so badly written that it would only reach the audience if it was played by Jodie Foster again! Of course there were some good moments too (the pigs, Liotta's head during dinner, the scenes in Italy), but there wasn't a single moment that the movie touched me in any way, and isn't that what cinema is all about?
And then the actors. Hopkins is never bad, but if you compare his performance to those in 'Titus', 'Remains of the Day' and especially 'Silence of the Lambs', this isn't a great performance. And although I like Julianne Moore a lot (Boogie Nights! End of the Affair! Big Lebowski!), this role was so badly written that it would only reach the audience if it was played by Jodie Foster again! Of course there were some good moments too (the pigs, Liotta's head during dinner, the scenes in Italy), but there wasn't a single moment that the movie touched me in any way, and isn't that what cinema is all about?