Customer Reviews

Hannibal (Widescreen) [2 disc Special Edition]

5 star:		(149)
4 star:		(108)
3 star:		(80)
2 star:		(84)
1 star:		(93)

 

 

The film is based on Thomas Harris' third installment in the "Hannibal Lecter Series" (Although, Hannibal Lecter is only a major character in one book.) The movie's ending was completely different than that of the book. WARNING: IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK, AND WANT TO, DO NOT READ THE NEXT SENTENCE! In the book, Lecter basically brainwashes Starling and takes her as his wife and moves to South America. WARNING OVER

Hopkins' acting was not as good as it was in "Silence of the Lambs," but it's very good. Julianne Moore's performance was not as good as Jodie Foster's.

The movie excluded the character Margot, Mason Verger's lesbian sister. I think she greatly enhanced the story's progress. In the movie, anything Margot did that was pivotal to the story (basically, just pushing Verger into the pigpen) Verger's personal doctor did.

Basically, if you're just looking for an amazing movie, DON'T pick this up, if you're looking for a gory movie, pick it up. If you're looking for a good sequel to an amazing movie (Silence of the Lambs.)

"Hannibal" is directed by Ridley Scott.it takes place after the events
in the Silence of the Lambs.Here we have the great Anthony Hopkins
reprising his Role as Hannibal Lecter,serial killer and one time
psychiatrist.and Jullianne Moore takes over as FBI agent Clarice
Starling.in this movie Hannibal comes out of hiding to bait Clarice.The
movie starts in Florence Italy,where Lecter has been living in disguise
as an art scholar.however events force him back to America.once there,
he of course baits agent Starling and he himself becomes the focus of
revenge by a former patient who barley escaped being killed by
Lecter.Gary Oldman plays the former patient.the movie is very stylish
with beautiful photography and scenery,especially in Italy.we are shown
the old buildings with their impressive architecture.the movie is very
well lit,giving the perfect atmosphere.the movie on the whole focuses
more on style than substance and the fact that Lecter comes out of
hiding takes away the air of mystery the film could have had.so,the
film,while beautiful to look at,seems hollow at times and incomplete.it
can also be slow and overly dramatic at times,lacking the pace of the
previous incarnations.Lecter is also played more for camp in this
film,with his witty one liners.he just doesn't seem as frightening here.
The acting is very good in the movie,especially by Moore,who inhabits
the character of Starling with the same affectations,mannerisms and
accent as her predecessor,Jodi Foster.despite it's failings,i still
enjoyed the movie- more so than"Silence"but less so than "RedDragon Or
"Manhunter".i would have to give this movie a 4/5 for its beautiful
style and the acting of Jullianne Moore.

WHEN I FIRST HEARD THAT DIRECTOR RIDLEY SCOTT WAS INVOLVED IN THE SEQUEL TO THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, I WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO A RAW THRILLING PIECE OF CINEMATIC HISTORY. I SAT PATIENTLY IN MY CINEMA CHAIR, GROWING MORE AND MORE RESTLESS. IT WAS WHEN THE INFAMOUSE END SEQUENCE ARRIVED THAT I ACTUALLY TURNED TO THE PERSON SAT BESIDE ME AND ASKED "IS THIS A JOKE?" I FELT LIKE I WAS ON A NEW HIDDEN CAMERA SHOW AND THE FILM I WAS WATCHING WAS A GOFFY SETUP. SADLY, THE MOVIE WAS INDEED NOT A SETUP AND THIS WAS WHAT FANS HAD BEEN THROWN AFTER A VERY PROMISING BUILDUP. FOR ANYONE WHO CLAIMS HANNIBAL IS A CINEMATIC MASTERPIECE, I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU ONE QUESTION; IF HANNIBAL LECTER IS SUCH AN INTELLIGENT MADMAN, SURELY HE WOULD KNOW TO GET OUT OF HANDCUFFS ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS CHOP OFF HIS THUMB AND NOT HIS WHOLE HAND. EVEN THE DUMBEST CRIMINALS KNOW THAT!!! LUCKILY RED DRAGON REDEFINED THE WORDS INTELLIGENCE AND SUSPENSE AND GAVE AUDIENCES THE PROPER ENTERTAINMENT THEY DESERVE.

When Thomas Harris wrote Hannibal, it was a safe bet that a film wouldn't be far along. Silence of the Lambs director Jonathan Demme and star Jodie Foster declined to take part in Hannibal claiming they found the story distasteful; so director Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down, Gladiator, Alien) and actress Julianne Moore (replacing Foster as FBI Agent Clarice Starling) were brought into this disappointing follow up. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins reprising his Oscar winning role), now living the life of luxury in Italy, finds himself on the run from Mason Verger (an unrecognizeable and uncredited Gary Oldman), a former patient who at Hannibal's advice peeled off part of his face. Meanwhile, Clarice finds her career on the downward spiral as she as used as bait by Verger to lure Lecter out of hiding. The suspense can't hold up to that of Silence of the Lambs (movie or book that is) and Scott's direction, even though he gives it his own slick look, is disappointing. Moore, as good an actress as she is, can't hold a candle to Jodie Foster as we find the once strong willed but vulnerable Clarice be more of a victim here than anything else. Finally, Hopkins just isn't scary anymore as Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter. That alone is probably the worst part of the film, and while Hannibal isn't necessarily bad, it's one of the most disappointing films to be released over the past few years. The cast also includes Francesca Neri, Frankie Faison, and Ray Liotta in the film's most infamous scene.

Let's face it: "Hannibal" is nowhere near as good as "Silence of the Lambs" (I'm talking movies, not books). To quote Charter, "Far-fetched and gory." Plus it fails to capture Lecter's true intentions toward Starling (as brotherly or fatherly, not romantic). Yet, somehow, the film is oddly satisfying, and I find myself draw to it whenever it's on. The mix of operatic score during chaotic scenes is strangely effective (similar to the ethereal tracks during intense scenes in the LOTR series of films). So, no, it's not a great movie, and Lecter's behavior is sometimes "out of character," but the movie is satisfying nonetheless.

I'm probably the only person who thought this was a dull, boring, pointless, and largely unsuccessful, movie. That's because a film that is merely a grossfest of bizarre atrocities, because it needs to surpass the level of weirdness of the original movie to lure people back, but which lacks any sensible plot to tie it all together, not to mention much else in the way of redeeming aesethetic or other qualities, such as scientific accuracy, is still a dull, boring, uninteresting movie.

I wanted to say something more on the medical info, some of which is wildly off-base. This will require my waxing a little technical, so I apologize for that in advance, but I feel obligated to point out that several things in this movie are total nonsense.

I'm not a medical doctor, but my masters and doctoral work was in neurobiology, and I do know something about that, and it's highly unlikely someone would cut off their face while on poppers, if that's what Lector gave the Gary Oldman character. There wouldn't be enough anesthesia.

Oddly enough, there is a way this could happen, but it's a very rare neurological condition. These people lack a certain type of pain nerves. Mothers with this condition have been known to go into labor without knowing it and had the babies fall out on the kitchen floor--not good.

These people are born missing one of the two main neural pain pathways, known as the paleospinal-thalamic tract, or spinal lemniscus for pain. The other pain pathway we have for pain is the neospinalthalamic tract, which is for so-called epicritic pain, which are basically sharp, pinprick-type sensations, as opposed to protopathic pain, which are more dull, aching, type of pain sensations. But if I'm remembering my neurology correctly, it's the former one that's involved in this condition. But nothing in the movie suggests a connection with this strange neurological condition.

Well, I didn't mean to get into the technical minutia on all this, but movie-makers have a certain obligation not to desseminate crapola. I also doubt that there has ever been a case like Hannibal the Cannibal. Obviously, he's a fiction or construct, perhaps a combination of several real-life people (such as the Harvard Law School Professor, Kingsley, was in the movie, Paper Chase), but I didn't even mind that too much. The movie revolves around Hannibal's bizarre psychology, which, although they never do explain it very well, is really the only interesting thing in the entire movie, and if they didn't have him, they wouldn't even have a movie at all.

Finally, the scene with the hog was lifted from a much earlier Thomas Harris book from about 15 or so years ago, called Red Dragon, which is about a different character than Hannibal Lector. But I didn't even mind that too much, as the hog was probably the best actor in the movie (and I usually like Anthony Hopkins).

There are other things I could criticize about this movie, but as this is already a pretty long review I'll leave it at that. You might think I'm one of those hypercritical, nitpicky reviewers who love to find fault with everything, but in fact I'm actually very easily entertained when it comes to movies, and usually I'm not very uncritical of them.

This movie completes the parallels between the Roman Coliseum gladiatorial games and Hollywood's film output. Next thing you know we'll be having our own version of the gladiatorial games with the same events the Romans had--gladiators hacking at each other, political and religious dissidents being eaten by lions, and naked boys having to chase and catch porcupines with their bare hands.

If you like pointless voyeuristic grossfests almost completely lacking in any other redeeming cinematic qualities, then this movie is for you.

The production and performances were up to the excellent levels established in the Silence of the Lambs and Red Dragon, right up to the moment when Lechter apparently amputated his own hand rather than give the cuff chain a few well placed whacks. This ending was so lame that the crew probably had to hold the author against his will: bound and gagged, and screaming while he was stuffed into the broom closet.
The original ending in the book would have held the door slightly ajar for another awesome sequel.
This ending so disgusted me that I threw the tape in the trash.

I am surprised to find many people disliked this movie. Personally I thought it was very good. Maybe not the best, but satisfying at least. Since the title of the film is actually 'Hannibal' I knew it would mainly be surrounding Hannibal Lecter, so I wasn't expecting a great deal more from it. However, another point which I also have to get off my chest, is the relationship between Clarice and Lecter. Now, being a huge fan of Silence Of The Lambs, I did think Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster had good chemistry. But in Hannibal, I was completely blown away by Hopkins and Julianne Moore's chemistry together. The only disappointment was, in my opinion, there weren't enough scenes between Hopkins and Moore to express this, and probably change the minds of the audience. The other cast members, such as Gary Oldman whom played Mason Verger, also did a great job. Overall I thought the film was definately worth the money.

I am a fan of both Ridley Scott and Hannibal Lecture, so naturally, I liked this movie. In Silence of the Lambs, we foucased on Clarice, which made the movie really. But it nice to sort of see Hannibal as the main character, and find out what happened to him after Silence of the Lambs.

This is not a suspense-drama like "Silence of the Lambs;" it's a horror movie. As a horror flick, "Hannibal" wins the 4 stars. That this sequel fails to retain the genre of the original film is "disappointment #1."

Losing credibility as a drama makes "Hannibal" susceptible to the humor that we attach to the "horror" genre. It had me rooting for the monster. This led to "disappointment #2:" The monster let me down by letting the heroine tame him.

Anthony Hopkins and the other actors captured their characters convincingly. The cast showcased REAL TALENT in the face of a plot that lost contact with reality. An impossible plot is on par for the horror genre, but a sold-out monster is not.

I saw "Hannibal" on TV, so I was spared the truckloads of pulpy gore that it reputedly dumps on moviegoers. Would I watch it uncut (pun!)? Yeah, but with reservations.

In keeping with the "horror" genre, the final scene would have been better served (pun again) if a "flying knives" Oriental chef-style ending had dispatched the heroine. Instead we get a pussy-whipped monster.

Parting shot: "Am I on a roll or what?" could have been asked by an FBI agent in the movie. Save it for the parody...

Encore: Was that Michael Jackson without his surgical mask?