IMDb user comments for
Hannibal (2001)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 130:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

1295 comments in total

---

101 out of 137 people found the following comment useful :-
Misunderstood classic, 18 February 2001
Author: steve-thomp from Victoria, Australia

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

It's a little frustrating reading so many negative IMDb comments and media reviews of "Hannibal", because the problem is not really with the film itself but the expectations most people seem to take into their viewing of it. It is also obvious that few critics and commentators are familiar with or fans of Thomas Harris' books; most have only seen the film version of "Silence of the Lambs" which, while very good, was a carve-up of Harris' book that eliminated or mauled several key sub-plots and moments of character inter-play. Rather than the outstanding verbal and cerebral portrayal of the Lecter-Starling relationship in the book, the film "Silence" was pretty much a clichéd horror film: dark corridors and cellars, etheral music, a bit of gore. Most have gone to see "Hannibal" expecting more Lecterisms, more I-ate-his-liver quotes, more spooky music and low lighting. What they've got is a much closer interpretation of Harris' work, and they consequently haven't liked it.

In Hannibal we see much more of what Harris intended Lecter to be: a figure of paradox, representing the highest order of human intelligence and the most despicable elements of human behaviour. Lecter is at once both likable and detestable; at many times in "Hannibal" you find yourself rooting for him, while knowing that you shouldn't. It's this morality twist which makes these films truly uncomfortable. Starling has been reduced to a smaller role in this film, as she was in the book; undoubtedly this figured in Jodie Foster's decision to turn down the role. Hopkins, given greater scope than dungeon-dwelling abomination, explores the character to great effect. Moore is adept if sometimes overly keen, while Liotta is fairly wooden, though in the final "head-opening" scene he does a good job of evoking grotesque pity in cohort with black comedy.

The film is visually stunning, if a trifle excessive: the Florentine scenes are a swirl of colour and movement, and the excellent operatic score underpins the concept of Lecter as cultural, refined and sophisticated. The screenplay was a workmanlike adaptation of Harris' novel, with very few changes. Overall I thought the film was a damn fine one and should be destined for a few award nominations. It is a shame that "Hannibal" has essentially been judged in comparison to SOTL rather than in its own right, and its reputation has therefore been affected by a silly expectation among the cinema-going public that sequels should provide more of the same, rather than exploring new ground.

---

69 out of 96 people found the following comment useful :-
Good, but not great, 12 February 2001
Author: webgrunt from location, location.

Anthony Hopkins gave an impeccable performance. However, the material he was given to work with was not as good as Silence of the Lambs. In fairness, perhaps there was no way it could be. In SOTL, he was somehow more foreboding, more of a sort of superhuman monster; in Hannibal, he's more accessible, a guy you meet on the street. Maybe it was impossible to maintain the mystery of Lecter that we saw in SOTL because of the risk of doing a rehash. I'd give the overall Dr Lecter character a 9 of 10 in this film, vs. a 10 of 10 in the last one. Not quite as good, but still very good.

Starling's character, on the other hand, fell flat in this film. In SOTL, Foster perfectly portrayed Starling's flat surface with a turbulent depth; in Hannibal, there was nothing under her surface. Foster's Clarice evoked feelings of sympathetic grief, Moore's Clarice evoked nothing. I do not necessarily blame Moore, this could be due to writing and/or directing. Obviously, though SOTL focused mainly on Starling's character, Hannibal focuses on, well, Hannibal. Still, that's no excuse for what was done to Starling. Her character gets a 3 of 10.

The story was much weaker in Hannibal than in SOTL. It almost seemed like an excuse to present us with the characters, rather than a story in and of itself. Still, it had no other major flaws, so it gets a 6 of 10.

Now, there's another category I'll call the shock factor. It's different than ordinary gore, it's... creative gore. The sick, disgusting depravity we expect to see and like to see in this type of film. I can't go into detail without spoiling it, but I'll have to say it goes even beyond what I expected. Do not watch this film if you are squeamish or dislike gore. There isn't a lot of gore in the film, but what there was, was... concentrated. Shock Factor, 10 of 10.

Overall I give the film an 8 of 10. Very well done with a few weaknesses, well worth watching.

---

50 out of 74 people found the following comment useful :-
A lot to chew on, 5 December 2003
Author: Brian W. Fairbanks (brianwfairbanks@yahoo.com) from Cleveland, Ohio

Many people were disappointed or flat-out disgusted by Ridley Scott's follow-up to "The Silence of the Lambs." I can certainly understand their disgust, but I preferred this to its Oscar winning predecessor. It had been a long, long time since a movie made me turn from the screen in genuine horror, and I didn't believe it was even possible. "Hannibal"'s deservedly controversial climax took me by surprise. It may have been revolting (okay, it was very definitely revolting) but so few movies these days have any lasting impact and I appreciate that this one did. And it is, after all, about a cannibal, is it not? At some point in a series of films about a man of Lector's inclinations, we should see him at work.

Of course, the horror of the climax is effective because the rest of the film is so good. Hopkins, a little chunkier than the last time we saw him in this role, positively exudes menace especially in his final confrontation with Pazzi (an excellent Giancarlo Giannini whose sad eyes make him the most sympathetic character in the film). Then there's Gary Oldman's Mason Verger who is so contemptible that he never elicits sympathy no matter how he suffered at the hands of Lector. And Julianne Moore is an improvement over Jodie Foster who I have always believed was overrated.

But the best thing about "Hannibal" is the atmosphere in which Scott and his team envelop the story. A cloud of dread hangs over this film, and beautiful Florence, Italy, though still beautiful, appears haunted by Lector's very presence in the city.

---

36 out of 48 people found the following comment useful :-
Much More Than Brain Food, 1 February 2006

Author: ccthemovieman-1 from Lockport, NY, United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I have to go against popular opinion on this one. Most people hate this film; I love it....well, 95 percent of it, anyway.

The shame of it is that most people only remember the last 10 minutes, a totally gruesome scene in which the top of a man's head is cut off and he's fed a morsel of his own brain. Of course, it's disgusting and I don't find it easy to watch, either.

However, the first two hours of the film offers a feast, if you'll pardon the pun, for the eyes and ears that is not revolting except for one other three-second shot. This is one of the most beautifully-filmed movies I've ever seen. Scene after scene is just jaw dropping and features some of the best shots, outside and inside, of Florence, Italy, you could ever imagine. Ridley Scott is known for his stylish direction and that is certainly the case here.

The dialog is fascinating, led by Anthony Hopkins' famous "Hannibal Lecter" character, whose vocabulary and intelligent sarcasm and baiting are clever and entertaining to hear. Unlike "Silence Of the Lambs," there is little verbal crudeness in this film, very little profanity at all. On the third viewing, I played this with the English subtitles on, so I could catch all the dialog.

This was a much lower-key film than it's famous predecessor, which probably disappointed a lot of people who prefer a lot more violence and f-words in their crime movies.

Although Jodie Foster performed well in the role of FBI Agent Clarice Starling, I preferred watching and listening to Julianne Moore play the part in this film. A "sleeper" here, too, was the great performance by Giancarlo Gianni, as the greedy Italian lawman, who winds up paying a huge price for his avarice.

Like "Godfather III," this is a very unjustly-criticized and overlooked third installment of a famous film trilogy.

---

48 out of 74 people found the following comment useful :-
Well, I liked it., 26 July 2003

Author: strangerzero from united states

Hannibal (2001) is one of the finer sequels I've seen. And to think, it's the third film to include the brilliant cannibal. Yes, this is the third film to feature Hannibal Lecter. What most people fail to notice is that The Silence of the Lambs is a sequel to Manhunter, which was the first to include Hannibal. But since Anthony Hopkins is famous for playing him in The Silence of the Lambs and so on, then people think that The Silence of the Lambs is the first film. Anyway, the premise for Hannibal:

Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore) is now famous for her work with Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), the notorious killer who has since escaped to Venice. After a bloody drug bust resulted in a mother being shot while holding her child, Starling is tormented by her co-workers and various other people. Meanwhile, Mason Verger (Gary Oldman) is hunting down Lecter in hopes for revenge. Verger is the only victim to have encountered Hannibal and survive, but he's horribly disfigured from the experience and has become obsessed with Lecter. While all of this is happening, Lecter is living the good life in Venice, becoming a very respectable yet creepy fellow. Things become complicated though when Inspector Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini) finds out who he really is. Verger tells Starling that he may know where the great cannibal is and this sets things into motion. Now with co-worker Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta) breathing down her neck, Clarice revisits her experiences with Hannibal and starts to contact Pazzi. Unknown to her, Verger has paid Pazzi a hefty sum of money in order to catch Lecter alive. After the failed attempt resulted in a gory manner, Lecter comes back to America to visit Clarice and break the silence.

Most people were probably turned off by this film in part to the violence. They weren't used to seeing the mad doctor kill, because up until now we've only heard about what he's done. The violence is nothing short of brutal, disturbing, and gory. One scene which might be hard for viewers to swallow is the now infamous brain-eating scene, in which Lecter cuts off the top of a character's head and feeds them their brains. But the violence is necessary in order to tell the story, and Lecter is evil yet brilliant.

Anthony Hopkins does a great job as usual as the deranged Hannibal Lecter. He plays the part with so much ease that he could play Hannibal while asleep. Julianne Moore is great as Clarice Starling, although it took some getting used to. I mean, I was just expecting to see Jodie Foster in the role, but Moore does great. Gary Oldman is scary and sympathetic at the same time as the deranged Mason Verger. The rest of the cast, scenery, editing, writing, and directing are all good as well.

Hannibal should have received awards, but award shows are all pointless anyway. Any true fan of Hannibal Lecter should enjoy this one. I give Hannibal a 9 out of 10.

---

31 out of 47 people found the following comment useful :-
A Pleasure!, 8 March 2001

Author: Clarice-5 from Victoria, Canada

Hannibal is a pure pleasure! While a little unevenly paced (the beginning was a bit slow), David Mamet and Steve Zallian have done a good job of telling the basic story Thomas Harris gave to us - and, incidently, the book was incredibly underrated by critics whose thought processes seem to have been damaged by too little quality literature. People have complained that it took ten years for Harris to write it - well, read it! It is chock-a-block full of mythology, astronomical and religious themes that weave their way throughout. The threads never break. The movie would have had to be eight hours long to even begin to explore the depths plumbed by Harris in the book.

Anthony Hopkins is, as usual, brilliant! Julianne Moore was sexy and strong. Giancarlo Giannini was outstanding and Gary Oldman creditable. My only complaint with casting was Ray Liotta, who just didn't have "it".

Having seen this movie three times thus far, I will say that watching it is like peeling layers off an onion. You see more and more with each viewing - little treasures and nuggets that you find almost by accident. The first time I saw it, I left the theatre not really knowing what I thought of it. Then I found myself smiling. I did like it. When I went back again (and again!) I liked it more and more.

Gory? Not really - and I consider myself pretty sensitive to gore. I have seen far worse. The story does have violence in it, and I think Ridley Scott, while depicting an integral part of the story, handled the violence tastefully (if you'll pardon the expression).

Is it as good as Silence of the Lambs? No. It's DIFFERENT from SotL. In Silence we had a caged monster whose intensity was extremely focussed. Here, we have a monster who is on the loose in a great big world, free to indulge in his passions. Hannibal Lecter's essence has not changed. He's merely in a different situation.

My only disappointments were: The changed ending. This was the major one. I realize the critics lambasted Thomas Harris for the ending in the book, saying "Clarice would never have done that", but Clarice was the child of Harris' imagination. The author is god, and if god says a character will do something, who are we to second-guess?

The length of the movie. It could have been a little longer and more focus could have been put on the relationship between Hannibal and Clarice - specifically, his obsession with her, and the time they spent together after the fiasco at the Verger Estate.

It was also too bad that Mason Verger's sister, Margot, was written out of the script.

All in all, though, I thoroughly enjoyed the dark humor and the adventure. Hans Zimmer's score is magnificent! This is a really good film - not a great film, but a really good one. Don't go into it expecting to see another Silence of the Lambs. It's not - and I don't think anyone has ever tried to claim that it is. Expect to see a weird and wonderful love story and an adventure! (It's just too bad about that ending!)

---

13 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
Hannibal, 22 May 2006

Author: tonyhu from Edinburgh, United Kingdom

I like this film a lot, but of course it suffers - as all sequels do - by comparison to its predecessor, in this case 'Silence of the Lambs' The main reason for having a sequel at all was to showcase again the character of Hannibal Lecter, a monstrous creation everyone wanted to see more of after the first film. It could have bombed badly therefore if writer and actor had let us down by failing to catch the magic again. It was after all a decade after the original was made. But they don't, and Anthony Hopkins turns in another delicious performance as the man with the evil intent cloaked in inestimable, menacing charm.

Julianne Moore drew the short straw in having to re-create the Clarice Starling role that had been so memorably played by another actress. She does well in my opinion, but inevitably we keep thinking 'where is Jodie Foster?', and this lends her portrayal a lack of credibility which is entirely unfair. Gary Oldman's Mason Verger is suitably loathsome and manages to make Lecter seem almost like the hero in their battle of wits. If there is a weak link, Ray Liotta's Krendler seems a bit misplaced.

The direction deserves special mention. The lush, beautiful settings are mocked by the horror of what is happening in them and the perfectly-selected atmospheric music stayed in my mind long after the film had ended.

Once again, the film lacks realism, but as with the original, it doesn't matter. Of course things like this don't really happen - but so what? It's a film. Get over it! I was prompted after seeing it to read the books, and the right decision was made in changing the ending of this story from that written by Thomas Harris.

We were subsequently treated to another look at Lecter in a decent prequel movie, 'Red Dragon,' but I will not be alone in hoping that some day we will see yet more of him in a further instalment. Unlikely I suspect - but not impossible.

---

33 out of 55 people found the following comment useful :-
Its very good, so see it on the big screen., 20 February 2001

Author: louise2104 from Hampshire, England

I haven`t been affected this much by a movie in years, so that must be considered good value for money. The controversial gore scene towards the end made myself, and the majority of the audience, flinch, scream and nervously giggle simultaneously (a feel good/feel bad movie rolled into one!).

Having never read the original book I took the film at face value. It is beautifully filmed by a talented director and crew, and features lovely Italian location scenes which contrast with the grim plot. The acting is mainly excellent. Hopkins character appears creepier due to him beginning to resemble a kindly grandad, who suddenly turns and eats your brain. Julianne Moore`s excellent Clarice vaguely reminded me of Ripley, the star of Ridley Scotts masterpiece Alien. At worst, the rest of the cast were well above average.

The film had me captivated with its style, twisty plot, acting and gore. I found myself slightly rooting for the baddie Hannibal at some points, something I haven`t experienced since my empathy for evil Alex in A Clockwork Orange. If people find the deaths of some characters predictable, then maybe Scott has directed well in projecting Hannibal`s approach and morality.

This is the sort of big budget horror film movie-goers have been waiting for, so go see it on the large screen before its too late! Okay, it is not the same as Silence, so what? Ten years have passed and things have changed. I`ve heard the book is better. Well, I may now read it, but in the meantime I have enjoyed an excellent, thought provoking Film Of The Year!

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Mixed feelings (possible spoilers), 11 January 2004
Author: Possum26

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I recently watched Hannibal again, and I can't decide on whether to like or detest this movie.

It's a feast for the senses, no doubt about that. The camerawork, the music, the choice of locations, it's all flawless. Even the brain-eating scene is done attractively. Hopkins and Moore are great, and Liotta succeeds in pulling off Krendler to the point where you wish you'd been the one wielding the serving utensils.

Mamet and Zaillian produced a decent-flowing script, but here is what I don't get. Why did they mutilate the ending of the book? Now, I'm not one of the people who complain when movies don't copy the books they're based on, but the ending of this movie is completely off the mark. It's stupid, ridiculous and makes painfully apparent the fact that neither the script-writers nor Ridley Scott understand the character of Hannibal as conceived by Thomas Harris. Sure, Hannibal respects Starling for her integrity, but he'd never hack off his own hand over his convictions. He admires Starling, but clearly, and this is masterfully executed by Harris in the book, he wants to "make her in his own image". That's what the dinner scene with Krendler is all about. For Starling to complete her "re-education", she has to indulge. She has to let go of her sense of duty and commitment to the ideal she has built for herself based on how she remembers her father. In the book, it's the conclusion of a process that takes several days, if not weeks, but Mamet, Zaillian and Scott turned it into a cheap farce, performed by a psycho trying to get his rocks off. It's just a nugget thrown in for shock value. You get the impression that Hannibal is simply doing it to punish Krendler for ruining Starling's career and being a generally unpleasant person.

Don't get me wrong, I totally appreciate the sheer glee of this movie when it deals with perversion (Gary Oldman is a riot to watch as Mason Verger), I just can't get over how wrong they got it with the ending.

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
One of the worst movies of 2001, 21 August 2001

Author: Michael Kenmore from Tempe, AZ

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Hollywood has churned out yet another garbage that's wildly overhyped and underwhelming on a first-time viewing basis. Hannibal is bad, terrible, inept, lame, droll, idiotic, contrived, laughable and utterly atrocious (no pun intended). Minor spoilers follow...

This movie has huge logic holes - more than any Bruckheimer/Bay movie - or for that matter - any movie that exemplify the indulgence of Hollywood exaggeration. It's a slick Hollywood production designed to cash in on Hannibal Lector mania, directed by "so-somber-he-takes-this-way-too-seriously" hack director Ridley Scott and produced by a hack Italian producer with an inflated ego whose credo is "doesn't matter whether film is s**t, money is good".

I can't get over the fact that acclaimed screenwriters David Mamet and Steven Zaillian wrote this tripe adapted from a lame and pretentious book by a good-novelist-turned-hack-author Thomas Harris. David and Steven - well-known and immensely talented screenwriters - wasted their effort on a poor screenplay in exchange for fat paychecks. Another factor in the disappointment of this film.

There are too many ludicrous scenes to list that are laughable in clunky execution and poor logic e.g. Starling/Pazzi cell-phone in the midst of Lecter pursuit that turns up Inspector Pazzi as the victim. Not to mention laughably bad dialogues delivered by Tony Hopkins with a smirk and Julianne Moore, Ray Liotta and others who cannot act with the straight face. Hopkins gives the true meaning of "scenery-chewing" along with hammy acting by Gary Oldman as a deformed psychopath bent on exacting revenge against Lecter.

The gore effect is good, but only serves to repulse rather than provide suspense which is notably absent from Hannibal. The predecessor - Silence of the Lambs - is more believable with tension and suspense. Suspense is what made Silence of the Lamb work as a spectacular mix of psychological horror and thriller, not to mention superbly written and tensely directed. The "brain dinner" sequence is so laughably fake it borders on self-parody.

The ending is kinda blatant and idiotic - are we supposed to believe that Lecter is still a menace to society with the last shot establishing his glittering eye glaring at you? Ooh, scary...

---

---

Page 1 of 130:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Parents Guide
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history