Plots(1)

Ten years have passed since Dr. Hannibal Lecter escaped from custody, ten years since FBI Agent Agent Clarice Starling interviewed him in a maximum security hospital for the criminally insane. The doctor is now at large in Europe, pursuing his own interests and savoring the scents and essences of an unguarded world. But Starling has never forgotten her encounters with Dr. Lecter, and the metallic rasp of his seldom-used voice still haunts her dreams. But Mason Verger remembers Dr. Lecter, too, and is obsessed with revenge. Verger was Dr. Lecter's sixth victim, and though hideously disfigured, has survived to rule a vast financial empire. Verger soon realizes that in order to draw the doctor out into the open, he must use someone Lecter cannot resist as bait: Clarice Starling. (official distributor synopsis)

(more)

Videos (1)

Trailer 1

Reviews (9)

NinadeL 

all reviews of this user

English 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. ()

kaylin 

all reviews of this user

English 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. ()

Ads

D.Moore 

all reviews of this user

English "What do you think? Does Lecter want to kill her, eat her, fuck her, or what?" - "Probably all of the above. It depends on the order." This is the sequel to The Silence of the Lambs, and it did not reach the high standard of its predecessor, but it does still have something to offer. Hannibal earned my attention with Scott's impressive narrative direction, the gorgeous Florence scenes, the unforgettable "nastiness"... Well, why not? "So what's it going to be - guts in or out?" ()

novoten 

all reviews of this user

English Dr. Lecter returns in a bloodthirsty style, but satisfaction is not present this time. The worst possible start is all the actions of Clarice, who with her tired face, forced me to fall asleep with every line about "shooting at a woman with a child." Thanks to the perfect Hannibal and surprisingly skillful Liotta, the seemingly unnecessary movie eventually becomes a sufficiently thrilling thriller, but the lengthy silent parts condemn it to be labeled as a violently stitched sequel. ()

Kaka 

all reviews of this user

English 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. ()

Gallery (66)