You have to be logged in to comment! If you don't have an account register now for free! Your account allows you to post comments and reviews, upload videos and images, access or our forums, write personal blogs, and maintain your profile.
Posted By: CountOrlok at 6:13am, November 13, 2009
I haven't seen this in awhile but I remember not liking it as much as the original. The slow pace was kind of dragging (and I like alot of slow-paced movies). The scenes with Oldman as a deformed freak were good, though.
Hopkins was less menacing in this, I think he's better in smaller doses rather than a main character.
The brain-eating scene made me cringe, as well as the scene where the dude cuts up his own face.
I really loved silence of the lambs and thought this was a pretty damn good squel to that classic movie. At first I ddint like Jodie Foster not being in this one but Anthony Hopkins and Julianne Moore had great chemistry and the story was slow at times but engaging non the less.
Showed this movie to a friend who watched it for the first time tonight. I can't remember the last time I watched the whole thing in one sitting, but boy did it remind me of how much I Love this flick!
Posted By: Bostic101 at 7:40pm, September 20, 2009
Was a good film. Can't hang with the original but thats what i expected. My favorite part is when he made the guy eat his own brains.
Hannibal is what classic horror is all about. It's not about the gore, the rather good acting, the sick deaths, no. It's about the story. It has one of the best plot's in a movie I have ever seen. The guy who plays Hannibal is an exceptinal actor, great performances and some scary as hell performances. The other cast members are really great too, providing quality horror entertainment that horror movies should be nowa - days. Hannibal isn't excellent, otherwise it would of got top marks here, but it's on the brink of excellence. It's a top notch, scary as hell horror movie that will leave you gasping at the end!
Obviously not as good as the first one because that would be impossible to beat! But never the less not a bad installment to Hannibal at all! Anthony Hokins is flawless again, the only complaint is that Julianne Moore was not as good as Jodie Foster, this would be a lot better if JJodie Foster played Clarice but never mind.
I used to think this wasn't that good but after a recent rewatch it's actually not that bad. Sure, Julieanne Moore is no Jodie Foster but she has enough talent to go head to head with Anthony Hopkins. This problem with Hannibal is that the character seems less of a threat now that he is running wild out in world. In Silence when he was incarcerated he seemed more vicious and silently angry but here comes off as more of a human being than a monster. Ridley Scott brings a touch of class to the entire film and it also has a gothic tome all throughout, the scenes in Florence are beautifully shot. Gary Oldman's Mason Verger is an intelligent villian and the make FX for his character is disgusting. This has a lot more blood and violence than Silence and Red Dragon put together noteably the dinner sequence which would surely have stomachs churning. If you didn't like this film on first viewing give it another go
Upon first viewing, I was kinda disappointed with this movie. Since The Silence of the Lambs is one of my alltime favorites, I kinda felt let down with this movie. Its definetly a different movie than Silence, a bit more artsy. The more I watch this movie, the more I begin to appreciate it. Its not as good as Silence, nor will any sequel/prequel ever be, but its a damn good movie and worth seeing.
Posted By: horrorfan25 at 4:35pm, November 2, 2008
Hannibal isn't a bad movie and actually the acting is really good with decent gore scenes but it never lives up to Silence of the lambs which was the first movie in the series. Julianne Moore was good for the most part, but let's face it Jodie Foster was better. Anthony Hopkins was back as Dr. Hannibal Lector which was good, but he wasn't as good as in the first film. Overall Hannibal has its moments, but it will never be as good as Silence of the lambs which is one of my personal favorites.
Posted By: Protecious at 10:19pm, September 30, 2008
definatly my favorite hannibal movie of all the 4 i have seen, even better and more interesting than silence of the lambs because this movie is more about the man hannibal and how vicious and interesting he really is, who cares about a dyke jodie foster?
I just finished the novel and then re-screened this film, so this will have AMPLE PLOT SPOILERS. But then again, you shouldn't watch this unless you're a Harris reader.
When I first saw it on its release year (pirated download then as well) I couldn't yet stomach much horror, and Oldman's makeup job creeped me out of seeing this.
When I saw it two years later, I loved the final scene where Krendler eats his own brains and could appreciate the storyline in Italy with the avaricious cop. I hated Moore's job and thought the Hannibal and Clarice scenes were lifeless as a result.
Now: I watched the whole thing through again after finishing the book the day before. I don't agree with which plot elements/characters are kept and which are discarded. I understand that the book's ending would have required Jodi Foster to make it believable, so I can accept this movie's cop-out.
I've done my fair share of hating on de Laurentis (check my Hannibal Rising review), especially for his unforgiveably 80s cheese 'Manhunter' that has somehow acquired a cult of appreciators. I was okay with his 'Red Dragon'; I did the same for that movie as for this - I read the book. While 'Red Dragon' has its flaws, it's not nearly as bad as this entry. That said, 'Hannibal' is nowheres near as shitty as 'Hannibal Rising' being that it still features Hopkins in some legitimately scary moments.
The pacing is incredibly off, and the scene composition in the Union Station scene is disappointing (done right, I'd have given this movie a full extra star).
The Verger plot is compromised for some unknown reason (maybe Gary Oldman just didn't want any more to do with this movie than he had to in order to get paid). Which, speaking of money and how that's the only thing de Laurentis has, it's not used to give Mason Verger a proper effects treatment. In the book, he is severely worse off in terms of appearance than in the film (I really wanted to see the eye in the foggy glass artificial eyelid, which is ironic as this makeup job scared me WHEN I WAS TWELVE). Also, Mason's eel is left out of the story, as is his sister Margot who in the book makes the compelling argument for Mason's demise, whereas in the movie that job is illogically flagged off to Cordell like a last minute 'oh fuck we forgot about that part'.
Instead of taking up that Margot subplot, the movie spends time on the Starling/Krendler subplot and, for the most part, just regurgitates sound bytes from 'Silence' with Moore's voice dubbed in. I am now more forgiving of her role; if Foster hadn't defined that character, Moore would have had a real shot at this character, but all the work she puts into her scenes evaporates as soon as Hopkins is on screen with her, and not because of her acting, but because of the Hannibal/Clarice dynamic that Foster and Hopkins created.
The book is worth a read, but this movie - it's little more than frustrating masturbation from a desperate movie studio.
One great highlight: Hannibal sharing his personal meal with the child on the plane (final scene)
Well as a huge fan of Silence of the Lambs and Red Dragon this movie was just ok. The book is great and this movie just did not match it in any aspect. It is slow and a lil boreing.
"I've been giving a lot of thought ... towards eating your wife."
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
So says Anthony Hopkins to a man whose wife has found him charming. Yes, that's right, Hannibal has started doing gags. A double entendre, sort of like Carry On Cannibal. And, while this recreation of his '91 role isn't quite the ultimate distillation of camp that reviews may have led you to believe, we're surely just two sequels away from Hannibal vs. Jason.
WARNING: REST OF REVIEW CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS. ONLY READ IF YOU'VE SEEN THE FILM
Easily the weakest of the Lecter trilogy, this follows on from Manhunter and the infamous Silence of the Lambs. Manhunter (6) was a brooding, low-key, though never intense, thriller, with all the hallmarks of a TV movie, despite striking direction. William L. Peterson impressed as the FBI agent, though Ronny Cox failed to get a grip on Lecter (or Lecktor as he was known in that particular picture). While Manhunter may have flirted with the mainstream, it never got into bed and had its babies the way Silence did. Jodie Foster's non-return to the Starling role for Hannibal makes it easier to accept Manhunter as part of the franchise; if Starling can be portrayed by two actors then Hannibal can be as well.
For Silence of the Lambs (7) Jodie Foster received top billing, something which Hopkins' performance ensured wouldn't happen if they appeared together again; though both won Oscars for sterling work. It's a wonderfully observed performance, managing to stay just the right side of ham, and, crucially, unlike Cox's rather listless Lecktor, Hopkins maintains unwavering eye contact throughout. Initial viewings may disappoint with what turns out to be a relatively minor role for Lecter, though his nine scenes are still six more than Brian Cox had. Some unusual casting sees Chris Isaac and Roger Corman in minor roles, though the only real sticking point is Anthony Heald as the institute boss, who gives a performance too fey and silly to really fit in with the surroundings. Finally, the film opens and closes with the gentle sound of bird song. A nice touch.
And so this takes us to Hannibal, the outright proof that less is certainly more. Hopkins appears - after an absence from pretty much all of the first half an hour – almost constantly. A mere eight blinks were permitted for his debut in the role; here he blinks a total of fifty-six times. In fact, so unstudied is the part this time around that he comes across more as his role of Richard Nixon or that advert he did for Barclays, rather than an insane genius murderer.
This being Ridley Scott, the direction is of course well above average, though a little too overstated for this sort of thing, as is the subject matter. Everything inherent within Silence is here dragged out of the subtext, a spotlight shone on it and flogged to death. Julianne Moore does reasonably well in recreating Starling; so much so that after seeing her befreckled appearance you almost forget that Foster actually had dyed black hair when she played it. The undeclared love, or mutual dependency, of the two in the prior film is here expanded to a full-out romance, Lecter even drafting a love letter to the agent. His teasing of her Southern origins now seems childish and forced, while the singular plot narrative doesn't really go anywhere. In Silence they briefly touched hands; here they practically date and actually get a full-blown snog before the runtime is up.
The classical and religious references are here overblown and silly (Look out for Hopkins in "crucified" pose), while the characterisation is now so twee he gets to say things like "Ta-ta!" and "okey-dokey!" OKEY-DOKEY??? Can you really imagine Hannibal Lecter saying "Okey-Dokey"??? You don't have to – you can see it. Twice.
While you sit through the film and realise this is a series that has now disappeared into hopeless self-parody you can hang on to the fact that it's still mediocre... at least until the final scenes. Perhaps inspired by The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Lecter serves up one of the most bizarre dinnertable sequences in movie history. Less Guess Who's Coming To Dinner, more Guess Who's Dinner, Ray Liotta sits around cracking jokes and one-liners while his skull is opened and his frontal lobes are served up for deserts. Or perhaps that should be just deserts, as Liotta is a very slimy boo-hiss villain throughout. Hopkins dutifully chows down on fried brain cells with comic intent, making it not food for thought, but thought for food. The special effects used to create this "severed skull" look are extraordinarily good, but highlight the film's proclivity towards excessive gore. Not only that, but it's just too silly, too smug, too self-congratulatory.
If this was a stand-alone film then it would be worthwhile. It's still by no means a bad film, but following on from its predecessors it cannot help but feel like a betrayal. 6/10.
Alright ya it doesnt have Jodie Foster back in it to play the role of Clarice but really I dont give a shit. It wasnt here that I cared about it was the fact that Anthony Hopkins was back playing the role of Hannibal Lecter again. I thought this was a great ending to the series.
THE HORROR HYPE METER Excited to see this movie? Rate it here!
