Watched this purely to get it out of my watchlist. Knowing it existed as a sequel to Silence of The Lambs and not watching it felt like a waste, but I can’t decide if watching it was even more wasteful.
It’s crude, obvious, leaves absolutely nothing to the imagination, felt parodistic at times. Very disappointing since the first film is one of the greats. Hannibal Lecter had so much potential as a character, and was rendered a cardboard maniac serial killer here with queer jokes thrown in the mixture for good measure. Bleh.
Honestly, it was just okay.
Something about it just didn't work though. The ingredients were all right but the recipe was lacking.
I love Julianne Moore and she is a great step in as a more seasoned Starling. Gary Oldman was unrecognisable and gave a brilliant performance. Hopkins was good, it's a great character but... at times Hannibal's actions felt like the writer was pandering to an audience that already loves him and it fell flat often.
The storyline was a series of perfectly timed circumstances all round and lacked the depth the original brought.
There is a reason Jodie Foster didn't go forward with the role; even with her it would be difficult to make this as impactful.
That was a horrible experience.
This one is my favourite movie EVER!! Favourite villain, etc.
It's still very good but it looses some points due dumb cop syndrome.
I strongly dislike the idea of the guy going after Hannibal despite multiple chances to get out the game while still getting all rewards. It makes no sense for a seasoned detective.
That said... Great performance from all involved including the practical effects team.
The replacement for Jodie Foster did well despite not living up to her... Impossible after all as our mental image of Clarice is already made.
The Silence of the Lambs is a tough act to follow, however, Ridley Scott does a respectable job in Hannibal. The writing is weak in places but it is overcome by some incredible scenes. What this film needed was the return of Jody Foster and David Fincher in the directors chair.
What a ridiculous movie. Made me chuckle a couple times. Not sure how anyone managed to take it seriously.
The film "Hannibal" made in 2001 by Ridley Scott is considered a sequel to the famous film "The Silence of the Lambs". The movie "Hannibal" tells the story after 10 years since Clarice Starling (The Corpse Showman) first encountered Dr. Lecter. Dr. Lecter (the serial killer showman) currently lives in Italy and works as a consultant to a series of art museums.
The movie begins with one of Dr. Lector's former victims coming back to life. After some time, Dr. Lector meets a member of the museum collection where he works, Margo. Margo is one of Dr. Lecter's former prisoners and she seeks revenge on Dr. Lecter. In the meantime, one of the important characters of the story named "Misaki" enters the story. He is a Japanese detective who is looking for Dr. Lector and wants to arrest him with the help of Clarice Starling.
The film "Hannibal" was able to achieve success in the global market with a complex story and exciting events. Also, the professional performance of Anthony Hopkins as Dr. Lecter and Julianne Moore as Clarice Starling remains one of the best films of 2001.
All i got from this is Clarice should be in prison for allowing Hannibal to escape once again. If she didn’t illegally enter the rich guy’s property then Hannibal would be dead and no one else would get hurt in the future. What bullshit, you take away the chance for a victim to get revenge and set the perpetrator free on top. Of course she will get no repercussions whatsoever.
This is a good sequel for The Silence of the lambs, but is weaker and less beliveble, many of the actions of the protagonist and of Hannibal challenges audience suspension of disbelief.
What seemed to be a good sequel to Silence of the Lambs fell way short of the potential. Movie begins well with roping the audience in on what has been going on with agent Starling and Hannibal the last 10 years in between films and then laying out the ground work with a new character on how agent Starling and the rest of her team will get Hannibal back into custody, but then everything went to shit. The chase was a bit confusing as somehow Hannibal makes his way back into the US all of a sudden just speeding up the process a bit too much and then a scene in which he is playing a game it seems with Clarice that ends up in him getting captured by his rival which leads to Clarice saving him. Which leads to a picture perfect scene that brings out the true essence of the main characters and the audience thought that finally he will be captured, just to get away again leaving the movie where it started, thus the disappointment.
Is this Clarice? Why, hello Clarice.
I remember watching “Hannibal” with my family on TV shortly after its release and fleeing to my room in less than ten minutes, absolutely unable to stand the view of Mason Verger and the whole atmosphere that surrounded him (the fun part is that I tried to exorcise my fear by playing Silent Hill 2 the entire time, and I am not sure it was of any help). My parents came to check on me a couple of times throughout the film, telling me how boring it was and that there was literally nothing to be afraid of, but I couldn’t believe them. I grew up scared of watching the film again, but could finally find the strength to check it out some time ago. Needless to say, I am glad I decided to invest my time in something else back then.
It’s not a terrible film: Ridley Scott is a good director able to create charming atmospheres in his works, but there is literally nothing remotely interesting here. The plot is too fragmented and so full of worthless sequences and dialogues. Aware of the fact that making something along the lines of “The Silence of the Lambs” would have resulted in backlash from critics, Scott tries a moodier and more exuberant approach, the gore is a bit cartoony but at least offers some interesting moments to wake us up after hours of pure boredom. The last moments in Florence and the dinner at the lake house with Clarice are perhaps the only two scenes worth watching. As they couldn’t get Jodie Foster to play Clarice Sterling, the whole film completely focuses on Hannibal Lecter’s figure, and even tries to picture him as a wicked but charmingly rational and coherent antihero: his victims are the corrupted cop, the greedy detective, the child rapist, in a way they are the real monsters who deserved punishment. Some time is spent on the ambiguous relationship between Lecter and a more badass version of Clarice (played by Julianne Moore), but like the rest of the film, we end up going round and round without getting anywhere.
"People don't always tell you what they are thinking. They just see to it that you don't advance in life."
This felt so much different than Silence of the Lambs. Looks at director Ahh, Ridley Scott. While I still like Hannibal Lector in it, the storytelling did not feel as smooth as the first one. Might be my least favorite of the trilogy.
Fuck this gory shit. It's gut-wrenching even days after watching it.
Unfortunately, this may be the least of the four three films.
The momentum was off in this one, which was very noticeable right after watching the perfect pacing of The Silence of the Lambs. I'm not sure in what ways having Jodie Foster back would have changed the overall tone and integrity of this movie, but it was nice to see other returning actors.
I think most are more upset than I am about Jodie not coming back for the role of Clarice, but I actually really like Julianne Moore as an actress too and that probably makes me feel more forgiving than I otherwise would. She did a fine job, but still, she just didn't do the character justice following Jodie's portrayal; and I'm not sure that anyone could. (I mean, who could top Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter?) Julianne's version of Clarice seemed, I don't know, perhaps too bold and too confident. Jodie's version was obviously very intelligent and able to hold her own, but she had a humble like quality about her that Julianne's didn't manage to hit the mark on. One could attempt to explain it away by saying that she just grew from her work experience, but no; that just doesn't seem quite right.
I feel that in comparison to The Silence of the Lambs, much of the visuals as they're presented are over the top and meant for shock value more so than only lending to tell the story. I know there are novels that these movies are based on, but I haven't read them; so some of my personal impressions could be way off from the actual story lines as they're meant to be. Although from what little I've read about the novels vs the movies; there are portions that are not at all the same. I'm considering putting the books on my reading list, but I'm worried doing so will ruin how much I enjoy my current mindset of Hannibal and Clarice.
Now, I do believe there were definitely interesting ideas in this film. My personal favorite was the way in which they further dove into the fascinating relationship between Hannibal and Clarice with the whole hand chopping scene near the ending. I personally would have liked a movie past that point where they crossed paths again. I wonder if Hannibal would have invested in a prosthetic, and if not having the use of two hands would lead to his doom. To be perfectly honest, another favorite part of mine was when Cordell allowed Verger to "drive off" into the pig pit.
I can't say exactly why, but when Hannibal feeds the brain to the kid on the airplane, it feels out of character for him somehow. I've wondered if I'm alone in that perception. It also felt strange to imagine Hannibal dressing and undressing Clarice.
It's not as good as Silence but it's more silly and fun seeing Hannibal go crazy.
Director Ridley Scott brings a visionary new style to the Lecter series with Hannibal. The story continues as Clarice Starling finds herself once again assigned to the Hannibal Lecter case when one of his former victims, Mason Verger, attempts to manipulate Lecter into coming out of hiding. An all-star cast has been assembled, including Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, Gary Oldman, and Ray Liotta. Scott’s directing enhances the film a great deal and sets just the right tone for the story. And, Hans Zimmer delivers an exquisite score that perfectly complements the surreal aesthetic. However, the storytelling’s a bit rushed and the plot’s too congested. Yet, Hannibal manages to delivers a suspenseful and intense film that’s full of chills.
Terrific sequel to the masterpiece Silence of the Lambs. Nothing like Silence but that's a good thing. So many times sequels are just another slice of the same pie.
This film is enjoyable as an absurd piece of camp. I mean the brains and what not. When you think of the people involved (writers, director, cast) its nuts it was this kooky but then so was the book. Try not to compare it Silence, or let it effect the power of Silence. Just take it as it is. A bonkers movie with some decent gore and a lot of familiar faces.
I found this movie more interesting than the previous one, but it still has its boring parts.
7.3/10 it could be better especially in the end..
Kind of a typical hollywood movie, which means it wasn't very original. It's the usual hollywood dialogue involving agents and so on. Fbi this and Fbi that. Tedious and cliche the rest of the time.
Its seems like the usual scenes shot in a way that gives you deja vu. It makes you zone out. Its one big blur. The plot was boring on an unacceptable level for the genre. No thrills. No suspense. No atmosphere. The only initial horror is some makeup on Oldman as Verger. Pretty good makeup. Then nothing. For ages. Eventually Verger becomes somewhat of a Jim Carrey comedy character anyway.
The occasional disturbing scene will come along and shake you up. It's like a plot defibrillator, but it's too late because it's already dead. The plot is just too uninteresting to make this even remotely a classic. It's not even watchable. It also seems thrown together at times. You don't even feel engaged with the characters. They could be played by puppets and it wouldn't effect the feel of the movie. There isn't a feel. I'd have preferred puppets.
How to kill the Hannibal lecture franchise.
First time watching all the movie and so far pretty good. I like his voice tone....earieeeee!! ;)
Shout by Bulma PunkRockerBlockedParentSpoilers2015-05-24T01:04:30Z
The movie itself is not that bad, and I LOVE Julianne Moore, but her as Clarice Sterling (when you already watched Jodie Foster's outstanding performance) just doesn't work.