Customer Reviews
BEST IN THE SERIES THANKS TO HOPKINS - By: Lou Almighty, 09 Nov 2008 
Anthony Hopkins really makes this film worthwhile. Without his excellent performance this would no doubt have turned into a mess like "HANNIBAL RISING". The entire hype about extreme violence was totally bogus HANNIBAL relies more on the character of the serial killer than on gore FX (although there are some nasty FX indeed). The reason why this is BETTER than SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is because Hopkins gets more screen time. He is a brilliant actor. Thank God they good an good director here as well.
Started well then slumped - By: Langdon Ulder, 27 Sep 2008 
I was disappointed with Hannibal, I liked Silence of the Lambs but this is nowhere near as good.
The shootout at the beginning was very well done & I was hopeful that the film would continue this way, unfortunately the film descends downhill rapidly from here & there are no real highlights to watch, even the 'infamous' brain-eating scene was disappointing.
On a positive note, Anthony Hopkins is brilliant as Dr Hannibal Lecter & Julianne Moore does a great job as Clarice Starling (replacing Jodie Foster) but at the end of the day, the film is disappointing.
Underrated - By: Mr. M. A. Reed, 14 Aug 2008 Underated, misunderstood, a fine piece of work.
Firstly, the opening credit sequence apparently reveals the pattern of pigeons to show Hannibals face, which therefore could be seen as a metaphor for Hannibal as the kind of almost banal, charming evil that is everyone, as well as showing a link between Mother Nature & Lecter as predators. This is why the credits are important, as well as to show that everyone everywhere is being watched, all the time, by CCTV, & that these are his downfall... it was as if Hannibal knew by going to that one place, he would be discovered. He chose instead to reveal himself to those who may have chosen to look. Hidingin Plain Sight of sorts.
I do not see the film as Clarice's fall from grace, but more a tale of Hannibals quest for redemption. He returns to the US, even though he knows he is still one of the FBI Ten Most Wanted, & that he is almost definitely going to place himselfin danger by contacting Clarice, yet does so,in order to clear her name from the smudging she has recieved at the hands of the corrupt FBI. Hannibal made the suggestion to Cordell I believe for two reasons
1) for Cordell to be freed of the master-servant relationship to such a hideously disfigured spiritually/mentally person who was corrupting his servant. Remember that Cordell wanted not to be present? This is why he is spared. and
2) so that Verger can understand that killing for revenge is self defeating as it solves nothing, but also so that he is put out of his misery : remember that Verger himself commited the crime (and is alleged to be a paedophilein the film), not Hannibal, & only at Hannibal's insistence, as well as
3) self-defence. Hannibal is aware of virtue, & respects it, as well as of his own image, why is why he informs Cordell to tell others that "Hannibal did it". Even then, when he comes back to the US, to possibly make peace. He accepts that since he has been discovered, he can no longer enjoy the benefit of anonymity & therefore wishes to return to obtain closure with Verger & also to clear Clarice.
What you will notice is that he seems -in some respects - to be motivated by purer things. In this respect, therefore, those that he despatchesin the cruellest of fashions - not naming any names - all seem to be characters motivated by money to bring about Hannibal's downfall or incaraceration. Those that recieved the harshest treatment - hmm, tastes good - are those that are truly corrupt & seek to discredit the virtious (Clarice)in return for financial reward. This is clearly indicated by the fact that when Hannibals visits that persons home he removes a vital piece of paper revealing such information. The fact that he can subdue the dog, & that his eyes are red tintedin the poster, could also indicate that he is the personification of the Devil. Charming, articulate, ruthless, & unpredictable. One who mixes the truth with liesin such a fashion as that the truth can no longer be discovered.
Clarice is spared because she herself is working for the good & is morally pure. She is not attempting to bring about Hannibal's downfall for monetary reasons. The fact that Clarice tries to resist & recapture him shows his admiration for her. She cannot be corrupted. And so,in the final act,in order to preserve himself, he has to disfigure himself, instead of corrupting the purity of Clarice. And there's my reading why the film is better than the book. Because Hannibal returns to redeem himself, claim what is owed to him, & to defend the honour of the pure, as well as to remove & desecrate those who are motivated by avarice & greed instead of beauty & purity.
A Silly But Hugely Entertaining Slice of Horror Pie - By: TomBeTom, 14 Aug 2007 No one could ever accuse the Hannibal Lecter-themed movies released since 1991's "Silence of the Lambs" of being fine art, but each installmentin the hugely popular franchise has managed to be fun for all their misgivings & flaws. Casein point "Hannibal", a blatantly silly but hugely entertaining slice of horror pie served up by director Ridley Scott to satiate & satisfy any followers of Thomas Harris' iconic psychopath. Taken as a serious horror effort, "Hannibal" is sometimes unintentionally funny. Taken as the fun-but-bad-natured series installment it is, though, "Hannibal" more than fits the bill & arguably stands as the best entryin the series behind the Academy Award-winning starting point (discounting 1986's "Manhunter", which this reviewer isn't particularly fond of anyway). As ever, Anthony Hopkins isin fine form as perhaps his most iconic character, & Jodie Foster is sorely missed when replaced with the capable but bland Julianne Moore.
Picking off years following serial killer Hannibal Lecter's (Anthony Hopkins) escape from a mental institution, "Hannibal" picks up with FBI agent Clarice Starling's (Julianne Moore) careerin disrepair. Having shot a fugitive who was at the time carrying a baby, Starling avoids getting the sack when she's put back onto the Hannibal Lecter case, upon his re-listing on the FBI's Most Wanted list. This all leads to a meeting with prosperous millionaire & former child molester Mason Verger (Gary Oldman), a man now left with a monstrous facial disfigurement following a run-in with the cannibalistic killer of the title. Verger is dead-set on locating the missing Hannibal as much as Starling is, if not moreso, & plans to dish out his own style of revenge should he succeedin his mission. Trying to get Clarice as a form of bait, Verger takes his next step to luring the killer in. The obvious problem being that Hannibal has disappeared from sight ever since his grisly escape ten years ago.
Anyone capable of reading into the pictures featuredin "Silence of the Lambs", that hasn't read the novel, may well have an idea where he might be. As is, Hannibal has relocated to Florence, Italy, where he's about to encounter straightforward police investigator Rinaldo Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini). While investigating a kidnapping, Pazzi runs into Hannibal posing as the murdered man's replacementin his job. When Pazzi later stumbles across a photo of Hannibal on the "Ten Most Wanted" website, he seeks to secure the $3million reward by enabling the capture of Lecter. Alas, Hannibal has suspicions of his own, & ambitions, too. With a visit to America & a rekindling of his relationship with old friend Clarice Starling on his mind.
It should go without saying at this point, but the Hannibal Lecter part fits Anthony Hopkins like a glove. In portraying the aptly named cannibalistic serial killer, Hopkins continues to be downright brilliantin his immaculate performance. If "Hannibal" itself tries to go for the gross-out factor as opposed to the sheer creepiness of its predecessor, Hopkins isn't totally complying, & brings once again to the role the inherant creepiness & slyness of a calculated psychopath. In taking over from Jodie Foster -- who wouldn't sign until the ending was changed & then wasn't available when it was -- Julianne Moore isn't anywhere near as good. Sure, Moore is a capable performerin her own right, but she comes off as somewhat bland & one-note where Foster was relatable & multi-faceted.
In supporting roles aplenty, the background performers do good jobs with their respective characters. Ray Liotta is fittingly despicable & unlikeable as Paul Krendler, Clarice's higher-up whose held a grudge against her ever since she turned down his sexual advances. Giancarlo Giannini is very good as investigator Pazzi, & is endearing & captivatingin his humanistic-but-bleak portrayal of a man unaware just how over his head he may be. Gary Oldman is good but a little too campy as Mason Verger. As is, Oldman overplays the deformed dude & winds up elliciting unintentional laughterin some of his scenes (most notably when shouting for his servant Cordell).
"Hannibal" comes with its flaws, ones that director Ridley Scott does a lot to dismiss & overshadow. Stylishly directing the film & getting the best out of his acting talent (for the most part), Scott proves himself once again to be an adept & skillful film-maker. The cinematography by John Mathieson obviously helps. Elsewhere, the screenplay by David Mamet & Steven Zaillian isn't as watertight & note-perfect as the work done by Scott & Mathieson. Much of the dialogue is clever & well-conceived, but the good talking comes accompanied by a few clunkers. Still, these are just miniscule flawsin what is an otherwise well-scripted & beautifully directed horror movie.
The gore on handin "Hannibal" is of a massive increase to thatin "Silence of the Lambs". This second modern-day installment into the series sure does pump up the blood, but avoids the trap of becoming simply gross as opposed to being chilling. The gore is handledin a smart way that serves to creep-out the viewer as much as it turns their stomach. But as mentioned earlier, the creepiness is dramatically decreased from the aforementioned classic. Ultimately, "Hannibal" is a vicious & uncompromising horror movie that does its best to satisfy multiple demographics -- the artsy-film enthusiasts, the gore-hounds, etc -- without stretching itself too far.
Coming complete with an ending that has since caused controversy (but that this reviewer personally liked)in many circles, "Hannibal" may well be too much for some. Doubtless some will hate the gore, doubtless some will mock the Mason Verger subplot, doubtless some will question the film's purpose & meaning, & doubtless some will just regard "Hannibal" as a meaningless horror sequel. This reviewer personally liked this film, & it stands as my favouritein the series other than the superior 1991 hit.
Valiant Attempt To Better The Original - By: J. Roberts, 07 Jul 2007 Reprising his role as the charming cannibal Hannibal Lecter, Anthony Hopkins dazzles yet again as he brilliantly & charismatically makes his way back into the limelight. On his trail is the brilliant but flawed FBI agent, Clarice Starling, played this time around by Julianne Moore.
What is striking about this admirable sequel is the beauty of it's locations, from Florence, to New England, to Sicily & a fewin between. Moore proves her acting ability as Starling, & Ray Liotta plays the truly vile Paul Krendler, who is out to destroy Starling's stellar career. Whilst this film lacks the incredible suspense & shock value of 'Silence Of The Lambs', it does contain a memorably twisted performance from Gary Oldman as Mason Verger, one of Lecter's victims. Hatching a plot to capture Lecter & feed him to violent wild boars, the plot takes various interesting twists & turns until Lecter & Starling are ultimately reunited.
Hopkins' performance is as charming yet chilling as we have come to expect from him, & the chemistry between him & Moore as Starling is captivating to watch. Watching Lecter's excessive revenge on one of Starling's adversaries is also truly memorable. Overall, the film is beautifully shot, well-acted, though lackingin the same iconic dialogue as the original. Undoubtedly though, this film is beautiful to look at, & a fantastic soundtrack makes it beautiful to listen to, as well.
