Hannibal

If I had to rate Hannibal in one word, it would be: worthy. Hannibal is certainly a worthy sequel to a legendary film. It gives Hopkins plenty of opportunity to stay on the screen and to develop a very enjoyable relationship with his favorite agent. Yes, Julianne Moore is different than Jodie Foster, but that's actually a good thing. Clarice has matured a lot in that time, and as an audience bystander, I don't require her to have the same face she had during her studies. The setting of intellectually snobbish Italy also works as a nice touch for me. Now it’s time for Red Dragon. (09/20/2012)

Ridley Scott simply missed the mark. Jonathan Demme showed us that it's not just about the great character of Lecter, but also about how the film is approached as a whole. It's not enough to just take relatively depraved scenes and add them to a sterile story. The only thing you will remember is those disgusting scenes. This is not very good. It's a shame. At least I remember much more from "The Silence of the Lambs." This is how a cult becomes an ordinary film. But even "Red Dragon" showed that having Lecter in the background is not enough, it simply needs something more. (11/13/2013)

Oh, man, this somehow went off the rails. Hannibal is far from a bad movie, but hand on heart, what would it all be worth without the evil Anthony Hopkins, who this time stole the show for himself and let others just clean up what he did? It doesn't make much sense either way, but at least it's appealing enough, beautifully atmospheric thanks to Scott's direction and Zimmer's music, and ultimately, of course, irritatingly debatable enough to give clever critics and fans of the first instalment plenty to talk about for a long time. And I can’t say I was disappointed. The absence of Jodie Foster was very hard to swallow and the script is not even close to the first one, but as a great admirer of Sir Anthony's acting I just couldn't get bored even for a moment. And Gary Oldman? You just have to see it. 65% (03/04/2013)

Comparing Hannibal with The Silence of the Lambs is nonsense, they are two completely different movies, their only connecting factor is the main character, Hannibal Lecter. It is clear that the visually talented Ridley Scott took on the directing duties, and it was not a mistake at all. The plot is much simpler and more linear, with more focus placed on combining visual elements (captivating Florence) and brilliant atmosphere (Hans Zimmer's music, excellent camera work). The opening raw shootout stands out in this delicately crafted film sore thumb. Anthony Hopkins benefits here primarily from his voice rather than actual acting, which may disappoint true Lecter fans, whereas Gary Oldman in the role of Mason is outstanding and the makeup artists once again excelled. (10/26/2003)

As a standalone film, Hannibal (thanks mainly to Scott's imaginative direction) would certainly stand up better than as a sequel to Silence of the Lambs. I think what I missed most were the prison conversations with Lecter and Starling, which I really enjoyed in the first one. Hannibal is a much more action-packed, but also much less suspenseful sequel than its predecessor. The first had an excellent script and a mediocre director, the second has a below-average script and an excellent director – but the original wins hands down, despite the undeniable acting (yes, Hopkins is still just as demonically perfect) and directing quality (gorgeous shots of Florence and a great opening action scene). Julianne Moore was okay, but Jodie Foster delved much deeper and more impressively into her character. (06/08/2010)