Hannibal Rising (2007) User Reviews

Great performances all around

[reddiemurf81 · 7/10 · 21 May 2020]

I don't put this in the same category as the 3 previous films with Hopkins (counting Manhunter out completely,, even though it is a very good film). This movie is another animal altogether. Not only bc this has a young actor playing a young Lecter,, but bc this is the origin story,, how he became the monster. This movie shows so many new sides to the character. A helpless child,, a traumatized teen,, a deranged young man trying to put his memories together to exact his revenge,,, and also, love. His love for the sister he lost, and also his widowed aunt.

If you are a fan of the Hopkins trilogy,, then you must see this,,,

Fueled by Love and Hate

[view_and_review · 7/10 · 14 February 2016]

I avoided this movie for years. After seeing "Hannibal" I had no interest in seeing how he became the monster he was. Alas, an Amazon Prime membership and down time at work drove me to "Hannibal Rising." I learned that I have a far greater affinity for young Hannibal than old Hannibal. Young Hannibal grew up in WW2 Europe. He went from affluence to fighting for his life due to the war. One particularly tragic event forever changed him.

The actor chosen for Hannibal (Gaspard Ulliel) was excellent. He even had a sinister looking face the way the corners of his mouth curve upward in a Joker-esque manner made him able to sneer with ease. His acting left a little to be desired as his accent (or simply his manner of speaking) seemed forced. Also there was the dialog between him and Lady Murasaki (Li Gong). They constantly spoke in hushed romantic tones as if every word they exchanged was secretive or passionate. It came off as pretentious and grandiose as though they were the two most important or two most passionate people in the world.

If we were to boil it all down, "Hannibal Rising" was a revenge story. Some people are fueled by love, some by hate, others by both. Hannibal was definitely fueled by both and it was his inability or unwillingness to not cross the line that made him Hannibal the cannibal.

Satisfying.

[A_Roode · 7/10 · 8 February 2007]

'Hannibal Rising' faces many of the problems that will beset any prequel. When the audience already knows how the larger story arc is going to resolve itself, how do you make the new prequel engaging? With a charismatic enigma like Hannibal, there is also great risk of the new young version seeming like a hollow parody of the older more familiar version played by Anthony Hopkins. I believe that 'Hannibal Rising' is largely successful. It didn't strike me as a stand out film but I was satisfied with it overall and do think that it has more value than just to enthusiasts of the Thomas Harris books. I'd rate it a comfortable second place out of the five films with Hannibal as a character (I count 'Manhunter').

'Hannibal Rising' does seem a bit choppy and for a plot that explores what drives a character into psychosis and lust for revenge, it didn't really spend much time trying to flesh out the Hannibal character. You get the brush strokes and the gist of things but a lot of the minutiae seems glossed over. I guess my point is that the audience curiosity for this film would be, I suspect, about what things turn Hannibal INTO Hannibal -- the internal process-- and not just solely about watching him hunt down and destroy those who have crossed him. A minor point perhaps but it struck me as odd in watching this that a series of films devoted to one of cinema's richest characters wouldn't really get in depth character exploration in the prequel for the series.

This is not intended to criticize what I thought was a well directed and tensely executed film. It is a violent film -- no kidding, right? -- but a lot of the violence is implied, in the background or off-camera. I really commend this decision as my imagination is much more vivid when things are suggested and not shown. 'Hannibal' worked not through terrorizing the audience but more through horrifying. I was balanced on the edge of trepidation and distaste as Hannibal entered each show down with characters he wanted to extract vengeance from. I love sitting through a tense thriller that offers no relief and this was almost the case here. My fellow Canadians and I were in tears of laughter when it was announced that a character had fled 'to a village outside of Saskatoon.' Surely unintended humour, and almost certainly audience specific.

What interested me most was the discussion I had with friends after we finished watching the film. I asked them when they felt sympathy for Hannibal was lost in the film -- and make no mistake, the events in the opening act are very much designed to put you behind Hannibal. Some said after the first killing. Some said the moment he transforms from child to youth. I think it comes later. Hannibal is rooted for almost out of default initially. His antagonists are just that much more evil and repellent that you throw your sympathy to him. This changes when a policeman asks Hannibal to help him track down these same antagonists. Hannibal has the choice of doing or not doing this. His response and subsequent actions for the remainder of the film decided my sympathies for me. Lesser acts of evil, might be used to purify and cleanse greater acts of evil, but are still evil in themselves when the motivation and the cost are the substitution of salvation and justice for corruption and revenge.

A Razzie really?

[drpainters · 6/10 · 27 April 2021]

Like come on, sure it's not silence of the lambs, but nominated for worst sequel/horror movie, that's just dumb. Snobby reviewers who can't judge a movie on its own merits, only a comparison to one of the greatest thrillers ever made. Of course any other Hannibal stories won't compare, doesn't mean they are aweful. This is an interesting tale of revenge that setups the character. Worth the watch if you enjoy the Hannibal movies.

could it be better than Red Dragon and Hannibal?

[kidsparkle · 14 December 2006]

I went to a free screening of this movie tonight, Thursday December 12, 2006 at the mall cause they gave out free passes at my work across the street.

I wont give really much away...but the movie itself was great. Great locations, great acting--especially by Gaspard Ulliel as Hannibal. I swear his acting was so good that it was scary and near perfect as the demented Hannibal Lechter.

The story about how he came to be was great also starting with his youth during WW2 in 1944. And 8 years later, the main plot line unfolds showing him becoming a medical school student in France where he begins to learn of the many body parts that make a human work.

All in All this movie is a delectable revenge type movie with scary, dark bad guys and many gruesome deaths.

*two thumbs up*

No, it's not that bad...

[theshadow908 · 7/10 · 13 February 2007]

Hannibal Rising tells the story of Hannibal Lecter from age 8 to his early 20s. After his parents are killed during World War II, only he and his sister are left alive in their family lodge. A group of Nazi soldiers stumble upon the lodge and take shelter, but as they begin to starve they decide to use Hannibal's sister for food. Hannibal ends up escaping and ends up in an orphanage where he has gone mute due to his traumatic experience. He escapes the orphanage and goes to live with his late uncle's widow. When he finds the names of all those responsible for his sister's death, he goes on a murderous revenge spree, and he begins to cannibalize his victims. Not even he can see the monster that he is becoming. The fifth entry into the Hannibal Lecter series is entertaining, but could have been better.

Lets start off with what's good about this movie. As a revenge story, it's very good and very entertaining. It's about a young boy that watched the person he loved most brutally murdered and used for food. As soon as he's old enough, he makes a promise to his sister to do something about it, and he does. This movie would have been even better if it was a standalone film, but instead it's an origin story of the greatest movie villain ever. As a Hannibal Lecter movie, there are a few problems. They show some of the more important aspects of Hannibal Lecter beginning to shine through, such as his interest in medicine, and his loathing for rudeness. It even shows him beginning to taunt people who are interviewing him ("Now tell me inspector, did you choose war crimes?"). Hannibal Lecter shows more emotion in this movie than all the others combined, but that makes sense since he's not a monster quite yet. The only thing I really had a problem with was that they way the script was written, it seems that Hannibal would get his revenge and then stop. The movie doesn't really explain why Lecter would turn into a serial killer.

The acting is pretty good. Not one big name American actor appears in this film, which is kind of cool because we're not distracted by any big names, which leaves more focus on the characters. Gaspard Ulliel does a really good job as Lecter. Taking over for Anthony Hopkins isn't the easiest thing to do. He does the Lecter tone of voice pretty good. I didn't really feel like Dominic West was as involved with the plot as he could have been.

Overall, this is an entertaining movie, and it's nice for Hannibal fans to see him in a movie again, but they missed some opportunities to make connections to the other movies.

7/10

A prequel based on an European road trip and revenge

[FrenchEddieFelson · 6/10 · 10 June 2019]

Strange opus with a rather complex feedback: I really like certain aspects of the film while others bother me. First of all, I think it's a critical mistake to explain the origins of an imaginary evil character. Indeed, it's always better to confine a reader or a spectator to the darkness so that he's always able to imagine the worst. Moreover, in doing so, we find ourselves in a rather embarrassing situation of being in empathy with Hannibal Lecter: failing to be forgivable, a revenge is always understandable. Despite this rather negative introduction, the actors are excellent including the enigmatic Gaspard Ulliel and the gorgeous Gong Li, and the film enjoys a particularly neat photography.

Have the viewers stopped screaming?

[petra_ste · 4/10 · 7 March 2014]

HANNIBAL: Go on, Clarice.

CLARICE: I was thinking... a prequel. An origin story.

HANNIBAL: You say these words and you know what I sense? A little, pathetic, onanistic fantasy built on cheap anticipation. But please, enthrall me with your narrative skills.

CLARICE: Viewers need to see why you became what you are.

HANNIBAL: Read Lucretius, Clarice. Nequeunt oculis rerum primordia cerni... the first beginnings of things cannot be distinguished by the eye. The more you explain the back-story of a character, the more trivial and ham-handed it becomes.

CLARICE: We could say war criminals cannibalized your little sister in front of you.

HANNIBAL: Rather obvious, don't you think? The transmogrification of an ominous villain into yet another case of childhood trauma.

CLARICE: But here comes the interesting part: your hot Japanese aunt trains you in martial arts, so armed with a katana you start your revenge and-

HANNIBAL: ...goodbye, Clarice.

Hannibal Rising

[motrous · 8/10 · 14 April 2021]

Truly disturbing and succeeds in making you understand why Hannibal Lecter turned out to be the person he became. Not justified, but understandable. Don't leave this out when revisiting the other movies.

Stunning Visuals, But A Disappointing Story

[ccthemovieman-1 · 6/10 · 30 May 2007]

As a fan of all the Hannibal Lector films, I was expecting another film I'd enjoy and thinking this would be a terrific character study of man who is one of the most famous fictional killers of all time. What I got instead was more of a simple revenge story than the character study. Oh, yeah, we do learn some background of the famous "Dr. Lector," but not enough of what really made him the weird combination of intellectual and cannibal. Although portraying and having someone in the film label the young adult as "monster," the filmmakers (actually, author Thomas Harris) really made him more of a sympathetic character instead. They took the easiest road, out, too, making an easy target the villains: the Nazis. How often has Hollywood done that, even today 60 years after the conclusion of WWII. What we get is a revenge story of how Lector went from a child captive of the Nazis for a short time, to a medical student in Paris and how he tracked down the Nazis who killed the rest of his family. Of particular incentive to him was the avenging of his sister's death. There is a neat little twist at the ending regarding that but I go into that for spoiler reasons. The best part of the film was the absolutely gorgeous cinematography. This is beautifully filmed, first frame to last. The story is much better in the second half than the first, which has a few parts in which it lags. I'm not quite sure about the credibility of having an Asian aunt raise him, but I also enjoy seeing actress Gong Li. Her relationship with young Hannibal is a strange one. Gaspard Ulliel as Hannibal was okay but certainly not as riveting in the role as the mature Anthony Hopkins was in his three performances. Why a young French actor, who has all the accents that Hopkins doesn't have, would play the role, I don't know. Overall, I'm glad I saw it but, unlike the three other Hopkins' "Lector films," this is one I won't add to my movie collection. However, at least I learned what the most tasty part of the human anatomy is, not that I would ever put that information to use!

Why is this movie getting such bad reviews?

[egodominustuus · 8/10 · 11 February 2007]

I've heard a lot of reviews saying this was a bad movie. I disagree! I don't know if any of these people have read any of the books, let alone Hannibal Rising, but I loved the movie. Given, it seemed like Thomas Harris wrote the book strictly for the movie, but I felt this movie was made to have people understand how Lecter, "the monster" was created.

Yes, Lecter is irrational and that's the point. Hannibal Lecter is suppose to be distant because he's a psychopath. He's suppose to be apathetic. Some people mistook that for bad acting.

Comparing the movie to the book...they were about 85% compatible. Minor changes were made, but nothing too critical.

I think some people are quick to make this movie out to be horrible because they really are milking the Hannibal Lecter story, but I felt it to be a decent movie.

Unfairly maligned prequel

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 25 July 2016]

Designed as a prequel to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (and MANHUNTER before it), this is a film that aims to show how Hannibal Lecter ended up as the human cannibal that we all know and fear. Many people criticised this film, arguing that familiarity breeds contempt and the more we learn about a killer's background and origin, the less frightening he becomes. They have a point, but they're also missing something: HANNIBAL RISING is a very well made and entertaining movie in its own right. My advice is to forget all about the connections with the later films and just enjoy this film on its own merits.

It's a distinctly European film with a European sensibility and a young, French, unknown lead actor. It has a level of classiness that's not present in many an American film; a sheen of quality that sets it apart from the rest. The opening sequence, set in the latter days of World War 2 and detailing horrific events in Lithuania, is very well handled, full of foreboding, great effects, and sinister actions. It ably sets up the rest of the film, which turns out to be a revenge flick with the added intrigue of having the main character becoming more and more sick and twisted as the movie progresses.

One thing that stands out is the quality of the cast. The unknown Gaspard Ulliel is weird and brilliant as the young killer, and you quite believe he's a sociopath. There's a romantic sub-plot that goes nowhere involving the lovely Gong Li (CURSE OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER) but it does serve to humanise the monster a bit. The ever-reliable Dominic West is also very good as the policeman investigating Hannibal's crimes, although his role is completely extraneous to the thrust of the film. The bad guys, too, are very well cast and all of them thoroughly despicable chaps: Kevin McKidd, Richard Brake, and in particular a cast-against-type Rhys Ifans all make an impact here.

The violence that plays out is entertaining because the villains all deserve it: from the butcher slashed apart with a samurai sword to the guy strangled and eaten, these men are repulsive and their deaths well earned. Another highlight is that the film doesn't focus on the gore, either, not in a repulsive way like HANNIBAL; there's nothing stomach churning here. The cannibalism ends up as a sub-plot, really, not involved with the main film, but that didn't bother me too much. I enjoyed the pacing, the acting and the direction, and found all three of those elements assured and designed to entertain.

No need for this movie

[noodles-13 · 3/10 · 12 February 2007]

Presented as a prequel of the well known "Manhunter" and "The silence of the lambs", this movie pays apparently no care for verisimilitude. Lecter - we learn - is a victim of brutal violence suffered when he was 8 years old. He survives bombing, war criminals, a Soviet orphanage, a travel from USSR to France in the 50es (with also a jump through the Berlin Wall), where he finds a beautiful Japanese (!) aunt (Gong Li). He already speaks a perfect French and is able to study medicine without apparently having had any education (in the orphanage scenes he cannot even speak due to the war trauma). Since he is Lithuanian, he probably could speak German (very common in those countries before WW2). Weird enough, the Japanese aunt is a survivor of the Hiroshima nuclear bombing and she is a sort of Super Geisha Samurai who can fight under the ancient rules of Kendo (something a woman of the 40es or 50es could not even dream to do in Japan). Lecter himself shows to be able to cut a man's head off in one single hit of sword, in a scene so silly that I could not keep from laughing. In the end, this movie is simply an example of commercial exploitation of a once good idea, just like "Red Dragon" (a completely useless remake of the masterpiece "Manhunter" by Michael Mann) and "Hannibal". Stick to the original ones and let this movies out of your "to see" list.

A thriller of origins. Not as deep as I'd hoped, but still a strong film.

[Bloomer · 6/10 · 8 February 2007]

Hannibal Rising is a dark and thrilling grand guignol excursion into the formative (but still plenty brutal) years of the infamous Hannibal Lecter. Considering the amount of psychological material the film would appear to have to get through, I think it definitely errs on the side of briskness. In a broad sense, many important sequences are played out and edited very quickly, and this saps them of some of their resonance, but the mood does gradually coalesce into something followers of the prior films and novels will recognise, and will be rewarded in revisiting.

The teen-adult Hannibal as played by Gaspard Ulliel is pale and handsome, and his red slash of a mouth is always very much in evidence, signalling violence and malice, and reminding us of the flesh that we know will come to pass through it. After surviving some murky carnage on the Eastern Front during World War II, he eventually seeks out remaining family in the form of his widowed aunt in France (Gong Li). He begins to open to a more regular life under her curious guidance, but the post-war environment is conducive to grudges and violence, and these are the sparks that are quickest to ignite in Lecter. Direction in this all-too-brief part of the film is some of its best, as it visually and thematically stitches together Hannibal's fascinations so that we can feel them wrap around each other - blood, violence, his own incestual leanings towards his aunt, and his childhood bond with his late sister, Mischa.

After the first murder, though, (which definitely doesn't disappoint) it's a straighter ride through many more on the path of vengeance. It all makes for a fine thriller, but development in Lecter's character beyond this point is harder to read, and Ulliel's performance offers much relish but not-so-much variation. Of the other films in the series, this one has the most in common, stylistically and in subject matter, with Hannibal. As my friend also suggested when we left the cinema, I still feel there could easily be another film out there to deal with Hannibal practising as a psychiatrist and murdering folks on the side, pre-Silence Of The Lambs. This one offers the concrete details of his origins within a thrilling story, but somehow doesn't feel as deep or profound as I'd hoped it would - and I wish it would just relax and offer some longer scenes and more ambiguous moments at times. Nevertheless, Hannibal Rising is a strong film.

Good movie

[langridgeross · 7/10 · 29 April 2020]

It's not perfect and the script is a little cheesy but all in all entertaining andca decent origin movie

Hannibal is still a young and wild , let's wait for a next book...

[bloodlust68 · 7/10 · 6 February 2007]

I just saw the film at prepremiere in Bern Switzerland.First of all i read the book and my expectations was huge.I prayed to god not to be disappointed.And i can say no i am not.Although Thomas Harris did a screenplay for this film as well as he wrote the book , some things are not the same in the film like in the book ,and some are missing.Hope missing things are left for the DVD extended edition.Those things can offend some Lecter huge fans as i am too.But this were just several not sooo important things for understanding the film.All in all the film is true to book in all important things and events.I understand too that filmmakers can not integrate all events from book in film cause it would be too long.Gaspard Ulliel plays Hannibal Lecter mostly wery well.What i found slightly negative is ,just maybe,a little bit over the top.That means in some important scenes like murders his face and his art to play Hannibal is very wild.But clear is : after those traumas he had to live with no one can guarantee to stay normal or calm.Man can really see how he enjoy the act of revenge.You can really see it on his face.Those savage deserters that killed his sister really deserve same savage deaths like they did in their past.There are a lot gruesome deaths and images in this movie , what was to expect from a Lecter movie.A lot more than in any Lecter movie before.Some would say :now is a Lecter Mystery over.He is no longer a mystery to us like he was.But no.I would say: this film had to be made as book had to be written.No we understand why he is like he is.Although in this part of life he is still very young , can not always keep his feelings hidden.He is a Young Wild that becomes a Madman cause of his trauma from his childhood that never leave him in peace.For him all of his later victims remaining him of those Deserteurs .One more book and one more film has to be made where he would be explained a little further.His genius , his loving for art , fine things , his life as young doctor in Baltimore , America.He told once to Clarice that lambs are now still and silent but they will not always remain still , they will scream again.So his trauma will always stay with him , his whole life. Go and see the movie , you will not be disappointed.

The more we know about the monster, the less scary he becomes

[Flagrant-Baronessa · 5/10 · 27 April 2007]

In the sole Oscar-grabbing horror epic "The Silence of the Lambs" Hannibal Lector was presented to us intelligently and sparsely in fleeting glimpses – covered in masks, behind bars and in the shadow. In "Hannibal Rising", he inhabits every single scene. This is his warped, twisted bildungsroman, his revenge story, and his background history. In short, the only things "Hannibal" shares with "Lambs" is its name.

It is one cash-cow of a name, too. Every frame in the film is milked its worth of Hannibal's evil nature, without much subtlety. Sure, there have clearly been half-hearted attempts to establish the kind of high-brow horror that Lambs achieved, but the film reeks of b-quality and unimaginative grotesqueness. There are only faint, dimmed traces of horror or genuine suspense, often washed away by pedestrian set-ups that make fans of the genre nod with tired recognition. For example, the dialogue feels unforgivably staged. In fact, there is no real exchange between the characters, only plot-propelling lines or rehearsed wisdom that slip through in between the torture games. But what is probably worse is that "Hannibal" never tips over nearly far enough or often enough into enjoyably hammy territory. It has absolutely no self-distance, the kind of spark in the eye of Anthony Hopkins, or any form of a sense of humour.

Onto casting, Gaspard Ulliel is clearly not a bad performer, nor is anyone's acting truly the root of the film's problems. However, Ulliel's gaze isn't the piercing, wise, twisted trademark look of Hopkins as Lector, but rather the sleazy eye of a teenage boy ogling a girl on the street. To add insult to injury, he is confident in a way that is much too cocky for Lector, who should rely on a sort of inherent calm and confidence that is only displayed subtly through his eyes. I will concede that a couple of scenes aptly showcases his acting skills though, such as the mental breakdown scene toward the end of the film. Rhys Ifans, a charming Welshman usually relegated to good-guy characters, gets his freak on in unnecessarily sinister ways. He has "the eyes of an arctic wolf" and throughout the film he shouts, murders, loots, rapes and generally acts badass to instill the 'baddie' image in his character. Which is clearly preaching to the choir given his opening crime – what prompts Lector's revenge. Nevertheless, nothing Ifans does is all bad, and again, acting is never the problem.

The fundamental problem is my titular assessment. It can stand repeating: the more we know about the monster, the less scary he becomes. I would not go as far as to say the story victimizes Hannibal, but here he inhabits the protagonist slot and elicits sympathy of sorts accordingly. Do we root for him? Not exactly. Do we wish he'd get caught? Not really. There are plenty of gray zones in the film -- perhaps intentional, perhaps not -- that have the cumulative effect of not really achieving anything tangible. Toward the end you almost feel a bit 'meh' about the whole story, and the not-hero-but-not-villain slot inhabited by Hannibal causes a stance of indifference toward his action, however outlandish they are.

5.5 out of 10

A good story that stands on it's own

[phd_travel · 9/10 · 10 November 2013]

I think the best way to enjoy of this movie is to think of it on it's own without the Silence of the Lambs in mind. Because as a story it is a very good WWII related historical thriller set in Lithuania and France. And the character of Hannibal is actually a sympathetic hero of sorts. You're on his side throughout the story since he has some justification and the retribution theme is surprisingly freshly done here. In that way it doesn't seem to gel with the later stories that much but that is because of the novels.

I was not a Silence of the Lambs fan thought it mostly gross horror - so I didn't see Hannibal Rising till 2013 on DVD. In Hannibal Rising the violence isn't that graphic - you know when to avert your eyes. Cannibalism is there but it's not so in your face. Anyway the violence mostly has a feel good element that makes it more acceptable.

Production is good. The historical European atmosphere and sets are authentic looking. Acting is good too. Gong Li is beautiful here and actually a useful as opposed to the usual helpless heroine with some goodness in her heart. Gaspard Ulliel is fascinating to watch just creepy enough yet sympathetic. Just have to put out of your mind that he could turn into Anthony Hopkins.

Surprisingly good on its own - even for non Silence fans.

a terrible addition to the Hannibal franchise

[Jamie_Seaton · 30 October 2009]

Silence Of The Lambs = flawless masterpiece............ Hannibal = fantastic..................... Red Dragon = awesome prequel.................... Hannibal Rising = f**king terrible

they should of stopped at Red Dragon. this film is really abysmal and really has no intensity like the previous three films. i don't know who Peter Webber is but i hope he doesn't direct anymore films as he has no professional approach. i don't know why Domonic West even signed up for this seeing as though he is fantastic in The Wire and also good in 300. Kevin McKidd (Trainspotting, Rome) is also in this terrible flick. i cant believe this film is even rated 6.0 on here, for shame ! please don't ruin the Hannibal films by watching this terrible last instalment........... 1/10..........j.d Seaton

Hannibal a hero?

[seanhmoss6 · 7/10 · 6 June 2021]

This film left me conflicted. I'll say no more than that. I refuse to provide spoilers. I thought it was a quite good origin story. The acting ebbed and flowed along with the script. I didn't feel the crescendos peaked enough. The story was fascinating. Thomas Harris wrote the screenplay and I haven't read the novel. Perhaps unlike Hannibal where, in my opinion, one of the most interesting and pivotal characters from the novel never made it to the screen, this is what the novel is. At any rate, I was drawn in and committed to the movie from the first 20 minutes and not disappointed.

Trying To Explain The Unexplainable

[zkonedog · 1/10 · 7 March 2017]

Some movies don't need to be made...simple as that. This applies 100% to "Hannibal Rising", a film that is completely unnecessary to the Hannibal cannon and should never have been made.

For a basic plot summary, "Hannibal Rising" tells the story of young man Hannibal (Gaspard Ulliel) who comes into his psychotic personality after a terrifying experience involving his young sister & cannibalism. After becoming an orphan and moving in with his aunt Lady Murasaki (Li Gong), Hannibal vows to find his sister's tormentors and inflict grisly punishment on them.

Besides all the other laughable stuff (for example, the young Hannibal putting on a barred mask) in this film, the glaring weakness is easy to identify: Hannibal Lecter was scary because he couldn't be understood. As human beings, it is difficult for us to understand the mentality behind a cannibal, and that is why Anthony Hopkins' Lecter was so creepy. Trying to explain Lecter's flesh-hungers is not only probably impossible, but also just plain dumb. There needed to be some endgame thoughts before even pitching this movie, such as "what purpose will it serve?" or "does this story really need to be told?".

It doesn't help that the acting is nothing special and there is no psychological tension whatsoever. Pretty much just emotionally flat all the way through.

Overall, then, I consider "Hannibal Rising" to be one of the most ill-conceived movies of all-time. It didn't need to be made, and then even when it was it was made very poorly (likely in order to try and attract a younger audience to the Hannibal franchise). Save yourself over two hours of boredom and skip this one.

Tasty Flick

[ecoli8 · 8/10 · 13 February 2007]

Isn't it interesting that most critics of this film whine that it didn't measure up to "The Silence of the Lambs"? If you merely want a reworking of Lambs, go rent Lambs and watch it again. Frankly, anyone who goes to see "Hannibal Rising" hoping to have the same response and emotions engendered by "Lambs" is a boob of the first magnitude.

The fact is, "Red Dragon" and "Lambs" are psychological thrillers, "Hannibal" is an action flick and "Hannibal Rising" is a biopic/action flick. Of the four Lecter films, "Hannibal Rising" is second only to "Lambs" in overall quality. ("Red Dragon" was spoiled by Ed Norton's astoundingly robotic performance; "Hannibal" was a visual masterpiece but was ultimately tainted by the the screenwriters' obvious desperation to concoct an ending that bore no resemblance to the novel's very cool conclusion.) "Hannibal Rising" has it all. 1) Superb direction (Lecter's riverside encounter with Paul Momund is stunning in its ballet-like choreography); 2) a perfectly paced screenplay; 3) beautiful art direction and design; and 4) powerful performances.

Li Gong's Lady Murasaki is actually as I pictured her in the novel: beautiful, mysterious and not-to-be-trifled with. But it's Gaspard Ulliel who steals the show. It amazes me that he successfully played someone who's simultaneously a sweet, vulnerable youth victimized by the Nazis and the Soviets and a calculating, coldblooded murderer. Ulliel's finest moment is when Lecter unleashes his unhinged wrath in the climatic scene aboard the river barge; it was thoroughly disturbing.

Don't listen to the critics. Go see this movie.

"I found them. The men who killed Mischa. I have their names"

[Clintborari · 7/10 · 13 June 2021]

I first watched Hannibal Rising at the cinemas when it was released and found it refreshing.

I would have seen it about three times now, and it still manages to grasp some very unsettling moments and distinctive on-screen deaths that hadn't been seen before.

The story itself is about the upbringing of Hannibal Lector. And how he subtly changes into the monster we all know too well. His story Is cruel and brutal so you feel compassion for the antihero, and can accept most of the horrible things he does for revenge.

There isn't much in the way of twists and turns but the film does deliver some nice easter eggs to fans of the previous titles such as Silence of the Lambs.

Gaspard Ulliel was brilliant. A young actor who delivered a very unnerving but calculated character. There were moments when the young man spoke that gave me the chills. I would love to see him in similar roles.

Overall a very honest and respectable prequel to the other Hannibal films. I found the scenery easy on the eye, and that the story moved forward at a good pace. Even if you haven't seen any of the other Hannibal movies this could pass as a stand-alone film.

7/10.

The details you probably didn't need to know

[Chris_Docker · 4/10 · 13 February 2007]

We are all voyeurs at heart. Don't gaze at that car crash. Act normal to the boy with Tourette's Syndrome. You don't want to know what the latest escaped pervert did to the girl down the road. Or do you??

Monsters, real, psychological, or ones we deem accidents of nature, are a constant source of fascination. Those in the cinema are like fairground rides - safe - but scary. You can laugh, scream or hate them with impunity. One particular cannibalistic serial killer has been called the most memorable villain in film history. His name is Hannibal Lecter.

Sequels and prequels are often safer box-office bets than new material. One of them (The Silence of the Lambs) ranked among the most significant movies of its day. Hannibal Rising represents the fifth of the Hannibal films, and is also the first film to be scripted by the novelist and original creator, Thomas Harris. So is it scary?

Taking as its overt theme, a psychopath in the making, Hannibal Rising introduces us to Hannibal Lecter as a young lad in Lithuania. It's 1944 and nasty Russians and nastier Germans are killing each other as war nears its end in the most hostile of regions. After watching his parents killed before his eyes, Hannibal cuddles up to his young sister Mischa. But the wardogs that barge into their forest lodge are almost dying of starvation and Mischa looks kinda tasty.

Just as we lean forward to watch the gratuitously gory slaying and feasting on a five year old, the camera cuts and we follow Hannibal as he struggles through snow and border crossings to reach his Japanese aunt living in Paris. At this point I am thankful that Germans, Lithuanians, Russians, French and Japanese all speak English in the movies - how else would they understand each other? Auntie Shikibu teaches him the arts of Japanese sword and stick fighting. Hannibal quickly puts the skill to use when a local butcher insults favourite auntie before nephew has got into her pants. And brings her his head. Literally.

Auntie manages to get Hannibal off the charges and he goes to Paris to study medicine - specialising, it would seem, in the art of chopping up corpses. Hannibal quickly acquires all the skills a would-be psychopath needs, yet in flashbacks and nightmares he is haunted by the memory of his sister.

"Memory is a knife," Auntie tells him, "it can hurt you", but undeterred he doses himself with truth serum and continues to track down all the war dogs that were nasty to lil' sis'. Most of them were also war criminals, so the authorities don't stop him too soon, and we get to see nasty Hannibal almost as a good guy.

Hannibal Rising is mainly of interest as a psychopathology of Silence of the Lambs. It tells us what we already guessed about how he came to be a nutter. What it doesn't do is scare us out of the two hour tedium.

We might believe iconic 'Hannibal' is scary in himself, but the truth is probably that Silence of the Lambs was simply one of the most important films of its time. Hannibal Lector was merely a side-product. In 'Silence', for instance, we got a technique little used at the time, where both Foster and Hopkins alternately look directly at the camera, face square on, as they speak. We are in the shoes of the person being addressed. One of those people is going to be hunted. Mercilessly. Add to that, Jodie Foster's star persona (shaped by the roles she's played) is one of a rugged woman who's nobody's pushover. We sense that if Foster is scared, anybody would be. Silence of the Lambs was neo-noir psychological thriller with victimisation that invokes morbid fantasy and horror. Oscar-winning performances, skillful cinematography and taut direction all combined to scare us out of our wits. Hannibal Rising sadly has no such assets. The script is pedestrian, the ending a foregone conclusion, much of the acting overdone, and it delivers neither horror nor thrills. It is a long film that groans under its own lack of momentum.

To its credit, there is some fine photography, and Gaspard Ulliel as Hannibal does a brave job of making the character convincing. Our story does include a small twist about 'sister stew' at the end, but it lacks the force to deliver a suitable climax. While adding to the growing canon of Hannibal films, I personally preferred all the preceding movies, and even the Trey Parker song and dance tribute, 'Cannibal! The Musical'. As a revenge thriller, Hannibal Rising is long-winded; as a psychological study it's didactic; and the camera turns away too often to satisfy a true gore-fest fan. While it will have its adherents, Hannibal Rising is hardly worth rising from your armchair to go and see.

Better Left Unwatched

[sychonic · 9 October 2008]

This is an unfortunate addition to the franchise, which to be honest, should have been left with Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs. Since then? Stuff that has made people money, but not much else.

The story line (and don't think there are any spoilers here, but always beware, sometimes I think the smallest fact ruins a movie) revolves around Hannibal's experiences during WWII, and some particularly nasty Nazis, Russians, and others. They give rise to some anger management problems for the poor wretched kid.

But there is a major strange disconnect between this "prequel" and the movies it is supposed to precede. I don't know about anyone else, but I never even considered the possibility that Hannibal Lecter was of eastern European descent. Just me, sure, I guess. But, what? Guess he's supposed to be brilliant, and so maybe Anthony Hopkins doing a bad Maryland accent can be excused because he was covering up a bad Lithuanian accent.

Problem is more basic though, bad plotting, weird events, bad acting, nothing really having to do with the other movies except cannibalism. And even that is strained.

Lecter is supposed to be evil, but here he's just not very good.