Hannibal (2001)

Must See Movie...

Just what I expected

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Clarice Starling is once again on the trail of Dr Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter. Since his escape he's been living in Italy, while Starling has been gaining her own notoriety as a no-nonsense FBI agent. Mason Verger, a rich but disfigured survivor of Dr Lecter, with an eye for revenge, wades into events in Starling's life by offering fresh clues. In order to tempt Lecter out of hiding, Verger concocts a plan to use Starling as bait. This opens up a lot of questions - Will Verger's plan come to fruition and get his revenge? Or, will Starling finally get her man? Or, will Lecter elude the authorities and Verger and manage to stay on the run? While Hannibal is a good film it's not as dark and moody as "Silence of the Lambs", it feels like a different kettle of fish all together - more Hollywood glossy. Where SOTLs was directed by Jonathan Demme it's Ridley Scott who takes over here. It feels like he's tried to pack more action in while making the film more modern too. Instead of a physiological nightmare there is a lot more gore, and instead of subtleties some of the events and dialogue are more obvious and brazen. In fairness to Scott though, the source material wasn't brilliant (maybe that's why Demme and Jodie Foster aren't involved?). I know this is a film review rather than a book review - but both felt like half-arsed attempted at coming to a conclusion rather than an empowered and invigorated continuation. Casting wise Anthony Hopkin's portrayal cannot be faulted - he's excellent once again. He manages to deliver even the most contrite lines with passion and emotion and is never too far away from looking like a threat ready to pounce. Gary Oldman as Mason Verger is great, albeit the prosthetics do look a little over the top (even fakes from some angles - look at his lips!). Acting wise the only characters who didn't deliver for me were Julianna Moore as Clarice Starling, and Ray Liotta as Paul Krendler. Moore comes across too flat with very little depth and pain - credit must go to Jodie Foster for making it difficult to follow the performance in SOTLs I guess. Ray Liotta comes across like he's not really trying; he's just there for fun and a pay-check. I found him annoying and unconvincing. If you read the books you won't be surprised to learn that the films, like the books kind of nose dive in comparison to SOTLs. Still decent horror/thriller's but not as dark, dirty and moody as what's come before them. 7 out of 10.

Movie Review: "Hannibal" (2001)Based on U.S. author Thomas Harris' own succession to the novel-exceeding cinematic centerpiece of "The Silence of the Lambs" (1991) starring Sir Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster directed by Jonathan Demme (1944-2017) with principal photography received in 1990 to Academy-Award winning major five Oscar categories from "Best Picture" over "Best Acting" and "Writing" to the "Best Direction", when here director Ridley Scott must push himself to psychological limits to visually-adapt an ultra-stark as horror-gothics-indulging ingredients of Harris' novel, publishing in June 1999, when relatives producing partners Dino De Laurentiis (1919-2010) and his daughter Martha De Laurentiis raise five-times the production budget of "The Silence of the Lambs" in order to bring "Hannibal" into motion picture shapes of real-auditorium-shocking moments by taking the author's written words literally to skull-bone opening-proportions with a climaxing scene between Hopkins as actually now more flourishing character of Dr. Hannibal Lecter running through a world of masks and second identities, when initial Clarice Starling actress Jodie Foster must have declined a reprising spectacle of sexual retraints with the ultimate gentleman monster in human shape that only Julianne Moore could find trust and motivation enough to go along with director Ridley Scott, in the busiest production period of his career in directing films of season 2000/2001 also producing-directing African-civil-war-movie "Black Hawk Down" (2001), releasing then in December 2001, granting the director his final "Best Director" nomination from the Academy, who then finds surprisingly a balanced tone for "Hannibal" to complete the impossible in adapting a mind-strangling imaginarium of psychological horror beat work with continuous striking facettes of the legendary nemesis character "Hannibal Lecter" on the run, defending himself with graceful violent acts, no-mercy-thrilling action-beats in stabbing strangers, slicing guts and an ultimately reach onto infected-sociopathic brains of U.S. governmental-advantage showing fall guy seek-out acting of FBI superior officer Paul Krendler, portrayed by actor Ray Liotta to utmost sexism-distasted-office-behavior that even a Indenpendence Day New England retreat can not stop Starling's downfall avenging Lecter, reaching into the darkest corner what any audience can bear.Supporting characters, including Giancarlo Giannini as Florence-strolling Inspector Rinaldo Piazzi, out for the Million-Dollar-Reward to expose Lecter's whereabouts, who driven by heart-breaking, written-into-the-actors'-face greed for presenting a better life with opera splendors for his lovely as caring wife portrayed by Italian actress Francesca Neri, when familiar editorially-unnecessary reprising role of Frankie Faison as Nurse Barney, breaking suspense levels at times to nevertheless impeccable make-up-effects put on actor Gary Oldman as ultra-rich, but disfigured Mason Verger, out for religion-retrieving old-fashion revenge on double-crossing former-psychiatrist Hannibal Lecter; a leading character, which keeps on tending to fascinate in 35mm film visuals by high-end coverage-seeking cinematographer John Mathieson and a diversive score by composer Hans Zimmer to a slashing-montage opening sequence by two times Academy-Award-winning editor Pietro Scalia in a 125-Minute_Final-Cut in order to witness a short-lived revival of classic Hollywood label coming back to life from the "Golden Era", in reminiscene of dominion-striking Los Angeles-based film industry's of hard-boiled script-pushing noirish pictures of the 1930s/1940s; Hollywood Studio Metro-Golwyn-Mayer, founded in 1924, here backed up by Universal Pictures in international sales of "Hannibal", making an exceptional motion picture experience for the matured spectre, an world-wide hit-movie. Copyright 2018 Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC

Firstly..I think Lecter is the champion of all screen baddies...somebody who would eat your living flesh is, for me, the ultimate horror.Secondly...don't think of it as a sequel and hold it against SOTL, because that was all about Starling...this is about Lecter...so it's not a sequel...just an opening of a bit part from the 1st movie. While the 1st movie dealt with the horror and misgivings of the bad guy...this dealt with the horror and misgivings of the good guys...and pointed out there's not much difference in them both.Beautifully acted and very well directed...this delves more into the wheres and not the whys...some of the dialogue is fantastic while dealing with sexism and office bullying.For me, Tony Hopkins dominated the 1st movie without hardly being in it....and he does the same again with a lead role. I also think in both movies the women are very strong characters..and that adds to the realism about Lecters lack of his mother in his life...if that makes sense. The violence is almost invisible , which makes me wonder why it was an 18 cert in the U.K..Excellent storytelling with excellent performances all round. I look at the average score and I notice very lows and very highs...as I said in my summary...you either love it or hate it...I loved it and will watch and watch again.

it seems be a pretext for a new meet with the characters. and an exercise to give a frame to an unique story. and this is its basic sin - the desire to give another dimension to a perfect story. the bad thing remains the temptation to compare it with "The Silence of Lambs". it is the motif for be more than critic about "Hannibal". and it is not fair. because each actor does a good work. because Anthony Hopkins explores, in wise manner, each trait of his character. because Julianne Moore tries to act in reasonable way a role who is far to be comfortable for her and Giancarlo Giannini propose a fascinating character sketch, the sin for this status remaining to the script. it is strange the desire to shock for convince. terrible scenes, tension and a not coherent story are tools for compensate the status of poor copy of "The Silence of Lambs". nothing wrong. but this strategy transforms "Hannibal" in a pretext for explore the success of the first part of the series.