Amazon.com: Yes, he's back, and he's still hungry. Ten years after The Silence of the Lambs, Dr. Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lecter (Anthony Hopkins, reprising his Oscar-winning role) is living the good life in Italy, studying art and sipping espresso. FBI agent Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore, replacing Jodie Foster), on the other hand, hasn't had it so good--an outsider from the start, she's now a quiet, moody loner who doesn't play bureaucratic games and suffers for it. A botched drug raid results in her demotion--and a request from Lecter's only living victim, Mason Verger (Gary Oldman, uncredited), for a little Q and A. Little does Clarice realize that the hideously deformed Verger--who, upon suggestion from Dr. Lecter, peeled off his own face--is using her as bait to lure Dr. Lecter out of hiding, quite certain he'll capture the good doctor.
Taking the basic plot contraptions from Thomas Harris's baroque novel, Hannibal is so stylistically different from its predecessor that it forces you to take it on its own terms. Director Ridley Scott gives the film a sleek, almost European look that lets you know that, unlike the first film (which was about the quintessentially American Clarice), this movie is all Hannibal. Does it work? Yes--but only up to a point. Scott adeptly sets up an atmosphere of foreboding, but it's all buildup for anticlimax, as Verger's plot for abducting Hannibal (and feeding him to man-eating wild boars) doesn't really deliver the requisite visceral thrills, and the much-ballyhooed climatic dinner sequence between Clarice, Dr. Lecter, and a third unlucky guest wobbles between parody and horror. Hopkins and Moore are both first-rate, but the film contrives to keep them as far apart as possible, when what made Silence so amazing was their interaction. When they do connect it's quite thrilling, but it's unfortunately too little too late. --Mark Englehart
Description: Anthony Hopkins is "perverse perfection" (Rolling Stone) in his return to the role of Dr. Hannibal Lecter, the sophisticated killer who comes out of hiding to draw FBI agent Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore) into a high-stakes battle that will test her strength, cunning and loyalty.
Hannibal I think that this film is the best out of the rest of the series. It is full of action and it keep you well entertained.
What's it going to be ... guts in or guts out?
This is absolutely the best of the entire Hannibal Lecter film series thus far. Ridley Scott's dedication to making solid films and not movies really pushes Hannibal far to the forefront of anti-hero worship and in the most uncomfortable of ways that just get under every inch of your skin.
So when did it become cool to really identify and bond with these villainous anti-hero's like Dr. Hannibal Lecter? Maybe it goes back further than I can place as I write this, but not in modern film and literature has there been such a mesmerizing and indelible character that most viewers just cant seem to get enough of.
I can fully understand the brilliance of Jeff Lindsey, who knew that Thomas Harris wouldn't be able to satiate everyone's desires by writing fast enough and picked up the mantle with the Darkly Dreaming Dexter series. He successfully reproduces a creepy yet likable murderous psychopath in the vain of Dr. Lecter. If you haven't seen the Showtime presentation of Dexter, it's a must see.
As for Sir Anthony, I'm sure that I speak the sentiment of most when I say that it would be good to see him reprise his role once more and it would be equally cool to see it directed by Ridley Scott.
The extras on the disc are fantastic for those looking to purchase the 2 disc version. It's well worth the money. Ridley's commentary is fascinating -- he actually states that of all his films 'this one is my favourite'. I was pretty stunned by that as I'm a big fan of Blade Runner. He probably enjoyed making Hannibal, which would be the difference of the two, as most already know, regarding Blade Runner.
At it's best This movie is just as riveting as was the "Silence of the Lambs" and it does spend some time in my beloved Italy. Hannibal Lector will have yo spell bound. Moore makes you not miss Foster in this movie, nope not one bit, and in this movies the good guys are the bad guys, or is it the bad guys are the good, oh never mind. There are some moments that aren't for the faint of heart, but if you can hold through those moments you'll find this a great movie. Just a foot note here; The book was 10 times better than the movie with a better ending in my opinion. Read the book as well but leave the lights on.
Beauty and the Beast Beautifully shot film visually. This is a horrific romantic piece and you have to in no way compare it to "The Silence of the Lambs" which is an entirely different film. It's so easy for people to say this is the sequel and compare it. You read some of the negative reviews on "hannibal" and the negative ones keep dwelling on it being a let down to the kind of film "Silence of the lambs" was. I did the same thing when I first read the newer book, I thought wow this is different. I really had to dwell deeper into an understanding of it on it's merit. Watching it I had to be completely removed from the "silence" film. I knew it was ten years later, but the focus is on completely different things than the other movie. Seeing it as it's own movie I thought, "this is pretty frightening, this is entertaining and pretty darn good." I was hooked and will never compare it to "silence", they're two different books and films.
"He Preferred the Free Range Rude..." Having read this book twice over a two year period, reveals some kind of fascination with the main character. The novel itself is the best of the series, and the film, directed by one of my all time favourite directors, Ridley Scott, had to be a perfect combination, and Scott's artistic sensibility as a methodical director, certainly shows in this gripping film.
There is so much in this film that needs to be pointed out in terms of its artistic "film" qualities: all aspects - score, location, costume, art direction, screenplay adaptation and of course the impeccable performance by Anthony Hopkins.
Ridley Scott began as an art student and is well adept at pen and ink. It is known that he would show up early on location in Florence, and know one, not even the producers or Hopkins for that matter, knew what he would do next: because he would sketch the scenes in his note book at night, visualizing every scene - from the camera angles to the actors lines... for Ridley Scott, film is a real & true art form.
Hannibal is one of the more interesting characters in popular literature/culture. An anti-hero of sorts, whose main reason for killing is rude people. In other words there seems to be a method to his madness.
My wish was that the film ended in the same way as the book: much more final and chilling - which made more sense.
Agent Starling relents in the book and through Hannibal's strength of will and power takes her to the dark side, both living quite well all over the world.
However censorship is alive and well...
For Starling to relent to Hannibal's hypnosis and power, to my way of thought, this was the perfect break through for a new story...rather than the terrible novel "Hannibal Rising" though the film however is exceptional; the tale should have moved forward rather than to its beginnings.
Most fans disliked this film for strange reasons...though it is the best of the trilogy.
Anything Goes Trivia
Trevor
Megaton Man
