* Prices may differ from that shown
Recently, I have become very interested in watching horror movies so have been looking to watch some classics! My sister kindly lent me a copy of the famous "Hannibal" and I must say, I was very impressed. What I love most about this movie is the storyline behind it. You experience alot of horror movies which come across as "dumb" because they have no real story behind them. Hannibal tells the story of cannibal Dr Hannibal Lector who has escaped from custody and is taking refuge in Italy. However, a past victim of his, who has been left hideously disfigured, is plotting revenge against him and attempting to draw him out of refuge to give him his revenge. Although this plot is not "scary" as such, the character of Dr Hannibal Lector, played superbly by Anthony Hopkins, makes this movie lean more to the horror genre. Hannibal's dark, twisted sense of humour and peculiar mannerisms makes us more sceptical of the character and what he is capable of. In my opinion, this makes the film even darker and more enjoyable because there is more to consider abut the character. One thing which horror fans may not like about this movie is the relatively small amount of gore. This would only be because gore isn't shown ttoo frequently throughut the movie. In fact, there are only two particularly gory parts included - Hannibal Lector biting the face of a prison guard, and the drugging and eating of the brain of another victim. Thereofore, gore fans may become impatient during this movie due to the fairly small amount of gore used. Another factor of the movie which I particularly liked is the relationship between Hannibal Lecter and Agent Starling (the FBI on the case of tracing the cannibal). The pair share an almost romantic relationship through becoming close in the previous movie "The Silence of the Lambs" which I find intreguing as socially, it would be frowned upon to share this sort of relationship with a crazed cannibal. To conclude, I would definately recommend this to all fans of horror movies. Despite being a fan of gore, I enjoyed this massively even though it doesn't include huge amount of gore like in other movies such as "Cannibal Holocaust". The story line kept me gripped throughout the whole move - which is quite an achievement as it's approxmately three hours long and I get bored easily. It gives the viewer alot to think about and everything ties into each other at the end of the movie for a brilliant finish. Definately worth watching.
This is a really slick film, from start to finish. The Silence of the Lambs is the better of the two in terms of thrills, but this is just a class act all the way. Hannibal is the belated but very welcome sequel to The Silence of the Lambs. Anthony Hopkins was able to come back as Hannibal, and this time the film does focus more on him rather than anyone else. David Mamet's script does him so much justice. It's full of culture, class acting, class writing and some truly brilliant moments between Hannibal and the numerous other characters he comes across. Jodie Foster couldn't return as Starling, as she had just become a mother. So the role of Starling was recast with Julianne Moore in the role, and in fairness she does a very worthy job as Jodie Foster wasn't an easy act to follow. The plot this time is focused on Clarice and Hannibal. Clarice has been rejected by the FBI after a drug arrest goes wrong. She is in trouble with her superiors and may lose her job depending on how it works out for her. Meanwhile at a huge country estate, a man called Mason Verger (Gary Oldman on top form) is planning to catch Hannibal. Hannibal years before had made Verger peel his own face off, and has left him in a wheelchair. In Florence, Italy, Hannibal has found work at a museum under another name and wants to come out of hiding when he finds out that Clarice is in trouble and is being stabbed in the back. So all three of the characters start to become intertwined as they all try to catch each other or get away from each other, leading to a wonderfully over the top 'Hannibal' style climax. There is a huge amount going on in this film, all of it related and so much of it just effortlessly intertwined in the plot. Anthony Hopkins is yet again on top form as Hannibal, and we see more of him this time because the plot revolves around him. Hannibal just became more evil. Julianne Moore is a first rate replacement for Jodie Foster as Starling. There is also brilliant support from Giancarlo Giannini as an Italian police officer attempting to catch Hannibal for the $3,000,000 reward being offered by Verger, and Ray Liotta as the corrupt District Attorney taking bribes. A slick, fast paced piece of film making. Not as good as the first film in terms of thrills, but the characterization and the dialogue make this effortless.
This film is a big departure in entertainment from it's classic predecessor and Hopkins is the best thing about this one. The film is set some years later after 'Silence' and Clarice Starling (this time played by Julianne Moore) is still generally trying to track down Hannibal 'The Cannibal' Lecter but is having a very hard time doing that and is occupying herself with other FBI assignments. Hannibal is living in Paris and his appetite for human flesh has seemed to have subsided but he will "take care" of anybody who threatens his freedom. Also, a surviving former victim of Hannibal's is conducting a plan to capture and kill him once and for all! I'm not aware of other people's views on this one but I thought this was one long bore! As in 'Silence', this film is dialogue heavy, but the movie moves along at a sluggish pace and I wasn't captivated as I was with the previous movie. This is much more higher on the gore side and Gary Oldman's Mason Verger, who plays Hannibal's former surviving victim, is hard to look at with the excellent makeup FX applied to him, showing off the character's physical scars that Hannibal gave to him. Julianne Moore's performance just couldn't reach Foster's in terms of greatness and her performance is rather generic. I always thought Julianne plays character's who have a chip on their shoulder and her version of Clarice is no different! The film's climax is laughable, although, I will admit that when I watched this in the cinema, years ago, I was on the verge of puking when watching that particular gory sequence, which I now find just hillarious to watch! Even Anthony Hopkins confessed to laughing at it so that must tell you something. If I found the first hour and a half a bore, the next half an hour just makes the film fall flat firmly on it's face! I would say miss it but I know die hard Hannibal fans will watch it anyway. Anyone else can afford to move on to something else.
Hannibal is the first sequel to the excellent, Oscar-winning film The Silence of the Lambs, and is based on the Thomas Harris novel of the same name. Considering the huge acclaim of the first film, and the massive hype surrounding this outing, there was a lot of pressure on director Ridley Scott to not only adapt the book well, but provide a suitable follow up to what is unassailably one of the best films of the 1990s. It may not measure up much to the original film, but it's still an entertaining film that benefits so much from the unique presence of Anthony Hopkins, returning as psychopathic cannibal Hannibal Lector. There is one notable line-up change, though - FBI Agent Clarice Starling is now played by Julianne Moore instead of Jodie Foster, and whilst the change isn't exactly agreeable, Moore does a superb job stepping into Foster's shoes, and is about as good a replacement as I can imagine. The film takes place about a decade after the events of the last film - Clarice has recently been disgraced after a botched drug bust she led resulted in the deaths of several people. Furthermore, there seems to be a lot of corruption going on around her - Justice Department official Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta), whose advances she rejected some time earlier, appears to be working against her, either out of spite, or because he is carrying out someone's vested interest. Also in the mix is a millionaire named Mason Verger (a nearly unrecognisable Gary Oldman), who Lector made slice his own face off some years before, and is now horribly disfigured. Clarice is trapped in this mess, whilst everyone seems to be trying to track down Lector - she is faced with several options, and could very well let Lector be murdered for what he has done in the past, but her being bound to uphold the law compels her to try and keep Lector alive, and instead bring him to justice. Although not a touch on The Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal still retains the wry wit and humour of the original film, combined with Ridley Scott's assured direction, and superb performances from Anthony Hopkins and Julianne Moore.
First of all I will say that I haven't read the book of this movie so this review will be on the DVD/movie. Now, I am a fan of the series, it has always fascinated me, the odd relationship between Hannibal and Clarice. That and the films develop the characters giving you more to think about as the story unravels. This movie is set after 'Silence of the Lambs'. Hannibal 'The Cannibal' Lector is still on the run, out of his state of 'hibernation', after 'being a little inactive'. The movie though centring on their relationship involved an old friend of Hannibal's, a 'Mason Verger'. This character had a run in with Hannibal in their younger years and has since developed an obsession over the cannibal. I won't ruin the plot as it takes away the mystery and charm that you want to experience for yourself. The settings within the movie are well chosen, I liked the way it was filmed, and it had the feel of the series. This and the plot is probably the main reason I enjoyed it. The new 'Starling' played by Julianne Moore took some getting used to. I must admit I didn't like her the first time I watched it, but the accent is pretty good and her face is of a similar shape to Foster's so it isn't a total disaster. I feel a lot of the lines in the movie were a little too 'Hollywood', I don't think they really suited Hannibal's character greatly but then again he has been free from his cell for sometime so his personality might have developed or changed slightly. All in all I recommend this film if you liked the others in the series. Be warned though that it is gory at times. Scenes involving the 'mirror, dog, and others made me turn away from watching them. Buy it as it is under £4. You can't go wrong. Ridley Scott, thumbs up. 4 out of 5.
A recent revisit of this film, (as part of a Hannibal Lecktor marathon including all the Hopkins films and Michael Mann's "Manhunter") has prompted me to reappraise the movie, and write a review. Hopefully I'll have something new to add to the 170-odd that are here already. I should lay my cards on the table and say that the first time I saw it, I thought it was terrible, however on second viewing it has become my favourite of the quadrology. Why this sea change? Two words, one name: Ridley Scott. This masterful director transcends the hoky silliness of the book and makes a piece of wonderfully weird art out of it without changing its substance. He also makes of it a fine comedy. Demme's "Silence of the Lambs" ends with a joke that turns on the pun of 'having an old friend for dinner', and "Hannibal" continues the blackly humourous 'grand guignol' theme. This really helps in understanding the movie in the context of the others. I must admit when I first read Thomas Harris' book I was sorely disappointed - I thought the situations trite and contrived, and the plotting lazy in comparison to his previous two Lecktor books - and this was particularly galling as this was the first with Lecktor as the 'main' character. These plot deficiencies persist in the celluloid version, and on first viewing, they irritated me even more in the film than in the book. For example, I found the killer pig scenes incongruous, ridiculous, even . But on second viewing, I can see why they are there - they are the comedy trail for a great, ironic joke as Hannibal turns the tables on his tormentor. Similarly, the Florentine disembowelling done with genteel politeness and the extraordinary finale: a Mad-Hatter's tea party where a man is fed his own fried organs as part of an insane Sukiyaki. As these set pieces unfold I found myself gripped with tension - a tension heightened by the absurd humour with which Scott leavens the film. Without it (and, of course, Hopkins grinning, gleeful mugging - he literally chews the scenery a lot of the time - and we shouldn't forget Gary Oldman as his flensed nemesis, gargling his Southern vowels with hammish torpor) Hannibal would have been indistinguishable from all of the other genius/serial killer films with which the shelves of Blockbuster are bursting, but with it, you have in your hands one of the best serial-killer movies ever made - and easily the best of Hopkin's Hannibals.
Dr Hannibal Lecter is back, 10 years after his escape at the finale of Silence of the Lambs, he is living a serene life in Florence, Italy. However Mason Verger (Gary Oldman) a billionaire paedophile who was Lecter's fourth victim wants revenge for the scarring and emotional and physical damage he has been caused. With the promise of money and power put before him Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta) a justice department official agrees to help Verger pull Lecter out of retirement using his employee, Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore) as bait. What follows is a melee of flesh eating, double crossing and a series of delicious performances from the main cast members. The Cast: Anthony Hopkins returns as Hannibal Lecter a Bon Viveur with a sickening taste for human flesh at the start of the film he appears almost sane in his new home, enjoying his anonymity but once he is recognised we see his sanity gradually pearl away and the monster returns. Oldman is good as a man who has been physically and mentally destroyed by this monster and wants to destroy him, really we should root for him, but he is a particularly nasty piece of work and Oldman plays him without emotion which makes it hard to care anything for him. Liotta plays Clarice's nasty good for nothing boss and gets his come uppance in fine style he is a sneak and a cheat and is only interested in himself, Moore is fine as Clarice and continues where Jodie Foster left off, she is vulnerable and tough in one and a fine character, although she does seem to get herself in a lot of trouble for such a bright lady. Is it any good? I didn't really think this was a great film, at the start when Hannibal is in Florence I really enjoyed it, the scenery the cat and mouse psychological games with the Italian detective trying to find and out him, it was a good start, with intelligent pacing and some fine acting. Once Lecter becomes the monster we all know he is, it gets a bit silly, the killing and cannibal scenes feel gratuitous and as if they have to outdo those of the prequel, which is a real shame as there is a semblance of a great plot here. The script isn't great and relies on too many catchphrases, Hopkins phones in the silly part of his performance and the chemistry between him and Moore is drab, it is a film which didn't really need to be made to maintain the legend of Hannibal. The action is fine but no better than hundreds of similar thrillers, the blood and guts are laughable not frightening it lacks the intensity and the fear of what you don't see that made its prequel so chilling. This is not one of Ridley Scotts finest films, there are some great shots of Florence at the start but the horror side of things is too over the top and makes the film seem a tad facile. DVD Extras: For £3.98 at Amazon you get the film plus: Never before seen alternate ending Over 34 minutes of deleted and alternate scenes (Which tells me all I need to know about how disappointed the director must have been in this film). Feature length Ridley Scott Commentary Breaking the silence - 5 featurettes A multi angle featurette on the art of story boarding (something that should have been taken way more seriously) Anatomy of a shootout (Making of Fish market action scene) Trailers, Tv Spots, Production Stills.
I have recently watched Red Dragon and re-watched Silence of the Lambs, so I thought I would finish off the trilogy by watching Hannibal too. Like the other films, this is also based on a novel by Thomas Harris. Hannibal takes place ten years after Silence of the Lambs. Dr Hannibal Lecter is still on the loose and is living in Italy, whilst Clarice Starling is still working for the FBI back in America. When a drug raid that Clarice is in charge of goes badly wrong, she is vilified by the media and by her boss. Her unfortunate situation prompts Lecter to get back in touch via letter and this, along with the promptings of one of Lecter's oldest victims, Mason Verger, who is rich and powerful enough to have some hold over the FBI, makes Clarice return to Lecter's case. But Verger wants Lecter found and caught for his own purposes of exacting revenge. Who will get to Lecter first? Anthony Hopkins returns to his role as Lecter in this film, but the same cannot be said for Jodie Foster, who is replaced by Julianne Moore in the role of Clarice. Moore does a good job of imitating the accent and is a realistic successor and a decent actress, but she doesn't quite have the same likeability or intense connection with Hopkins that Foster did. An unrecognisable Gary Oldman puts in a very creepy and disturbing performance as the hideously deformed Mason Verger, and Ray Liotta plays Clarice's irritating boss Paul quite well, though his character is really annoying and it is difficult to find any empathy for him. A more sympathetic character would have worked better in his place. The film is quite good and the pace was reasonable, keeping my attention all the way through. However some scenes don't have the impact that they should have. The showdown between Verger and Lecter is very quick and not at all tense or worrying, and the scenes in Paul's house are more funny than scary. Director Ridley Scott seems to try to make up for the lack of well directed tense scenes by pouring on the gore much more liberally than the previous two films and there are definitely some gross moments. The one featuring intestines springs unpleasantly to mind. It's also a shame that there's not more on screen interaction between Clarice and Lecter. Their relationship was central to Silence of the Lambs but they only meet towards the end of this film which is a missed opportunity really. This isn't a bad film but it's probably the weakest of the three. You can buy the DVD for £3.48 from Amazon.co.uk.
Director: Ridley Scott Producers: Ridley Scott and Dino De Laurentiis Writers: Thomas Harris and Steven Zaillian. Stars: Anthony Hopkns, Julienne Moore, Gary Oldman, Ray Liotta, Giancarlo Giannini, Zeljko Ivanek and Frankie R. Faison Released in early 2001 the sort of sequel to Silence of the Lambs tells the story of Hannibal Lecter, the notorious killer who eats parts of his victim. **BRIEF PLOT** Set ten years after Dr Hannibal Lecter, (played by Anthony Hopkins) escaped from captivity in 'Silence of the Lambs' he is know living in Florence, Italy under an alias called Dr Fell. However, back in the U.S. FBI agent, Clarice Starling, (played this time by Julianne Moore) is having trouble with her superior Paul Krendler, (played by Ray Liotta), who wont take no for an answer. Paul blames Clarice for a drugs deal that went tragically wrong leaving a blood bath in its path. With Clarice being assigned to a desk she happens upon Dr Lecters case, involving some new information from a child abuser, billionaire Mason Verger, (played by Gary Oldman) who's life changed when he met Hannibal years earlier. Unbeknown to Clarice, Mason Verger has secretly set up a reward for the whereabouts of Hannibal, so he can enact his revenge on the cannibal. Somewhere in Florence, Inspector Rinaldo Pazzi stumbles upon Dr Fells true identity and is hoping to claim the large reward from Mason. However, things go wrong as Hannibal react first to Rinaldo's plan. Leaving a bloody scene behind. With Hannibal then heading for America, searching for Clarice he soon falls fowl to a plan by Mason and a corrupt Department of Justice member to end Hannibal's reign of terror. With some action inside the billionaires mansion, involving some giant forest hogs and a double cross by one of Masons henchman the story really takes shape. Then, with a quick trip to Krendler's lake side house the really gruesome scenes continue with the eating of some rather sickening food, (fried in some butter and herbs). As Clarice is in fear of her life the ending delivers a crucial twist and a rather stomach churning finally... **IN CONCLUSION** A well written and rather fantastic sequel, as good as, if not better than 'Silence of the lambs'. Anthony Hopkins is a fantastic actor and really gave his all to give the audience the sinister and very frightening Hannibal Lecter, that every one knows (and in some ways likes...if not loves). Hopkins portrays Hannibal's as the very intelligence doctor with a hint of pure insanity, giving this character the ultimate fear factor and the ability to keep the audience watching with anticipation. With Jodie Foster being unavailable to repeat her excellent performance as Clarice Starling, the part was taken by Julianne Moore who gave a most excellent performance as the FBI agent with real attitude and a fascination for Hannibal. Her calmness on meeting Hannibal giving her the slight edge, Hannibal showing utter respect for the brave agent. The twist and turns in this movie tend to keep the audience on the edge of their seats and in some scenes, rushing for the sick bucket. It is a movie that is not reliant on special effect or CGI, giving it a more realistic background and a feel of pure terror as Hannibal could be that quiet neighbour who you only see putting out his trash on a Tuesday morning. Would I recommend this movie....? YES, it is a must if you liked 'silence of the Lambs' (or even if you didn't). Some of the scenes may well turn your stomach so beware and have a sick bag at hand, especially when Hannibal is entertaining Clarice at Krendler's and is having something 'special' for dinner. A great story and a lot of excellent acting combines to make fantastic movie.
Two words that really make this film Anthony Hopkins. Have you ever seen a film that he isn't good in!! This man really knows how to act and he has surely become my favourite actor and there aren't many films or programs with him that I have missed. Hannibal is Thomas Harris' third novel and cannibalistic Doctor Hannibal Lecter; Anthony Hopkins (Hannibal Lecter) is hunted down by Julianne Moore as an FBI Agent Clarice Starling hot on his trail. The story line is amazing, I don't want to say too much in case I ruin this film for you but I must say this is an amazing film that everyone should see, even if you think this isn't your film you will fin something that is great about it. The main story line is 10 years on from silence of the lambs another must see film, will the lovely agent starling catch him or will the others get to him first or will he dodge them both?? Who knows, makes you want to watch it Hannibal is away in Florence, Italy, here no one knows of him and he is free. An Italian detective Pazzi (played by Giancarlo Giannini) discovers who he is. He contemplates reporting his whereabouts to Starling, but then he wouldn't get the reward that is being offered for him, so he decides he will claim the reward for himself. Pazzi has a young girlfriend who loves trips to the Opera and Pazzi. This is how Pazzi goes and it's not the best way to go. That's a little taster for you there is lots in this film that you will enjoy it and I have watched in many times and still think it is a great film. This sound track will make everyone and anyone jump make sure you have a dustpan and brush ready or a camera to show them how scared they were watching a film. I think that Anthony Hopkins is an amazing character in this film and he really plays the part very well I couldn't think of another actor that would do this part justice or than himself, I really enjoyed watching him in the film. I didn't read any of the books but I no the books kept my mum up for nights, one for the shear thrill they give you and the other being to scared imagine all that in 2 hours. Will you ever sleep again? Best not to. This film also needs you to pay attention and no falling asleep or you will get a shock when the person next to you jumps on you, this is a great film. This is a group of films that you must watch once in your life!! 2001 film is directed by Ridley Scott and stars Anthony Kopkins, Julianne Moore, Gary Oldman, Giancarlo Giannini and Ray Liotta. 132 minutes long and is rated 18.
Whats it about? ---------------------- Following a botched drugs bust, FBI Agent Clarice Starling is re-assigned to the search for Hannibal Lecter. Meanwhile, Lecters only surviving victim, Mason Verger, is out for revenge Whos in it? ----------------- Anthony Hopkins returns as Hannibal Lecter and has a much bigger role than previously, although this is not necessarily a good thing. In Silence of the Lambs, Hopkins scenes were powerful, because they were limited and so he had a massive impact when he was on screen. Although at times he manages to recapture that sense of menace, at other times he almost becomes a parody of his former self and seems bored with the role. Its not helped by the fact that Jodie Foster is replaced by Julianne Moore. Its always difficult when an actress tries to step into a role made famous by someone else, and Moore fails to shake off Fosters shadow. This is partly because Foster was so utterly convincing. However, its also because, personally, I dont rate Moore highly as an actress, and she appears to be all at sea in this film, blundering through it on autopilot, desperately trying get a handle on Starlings character. An uncredited (at least in the original film release) Gary Oldman is all but unrecognisable as Mason Verger and does a reasonable job, but in a role so limited that he has little impact. Worse still, he plays a completely unsympathetic character, so its difficult either to root for his schemes of revenge or care about his fate. Because of the limitations in the lead role, there is very little emotional impact and the film feels a little empty as a result. In Lambs, the strange relationship between Starling and Lecter gave the film heart; here, the lack of chemistry between the two leads severely hampers the film. Is it any good? --------------------- This is very much a film of two halves one good and one bad. The first half concentrates on Lecters new life in Florence and the attempts of an Italian policeman to catch him for the reward offered by Verger. This is actually pretty good. There is a tense atmosphere pervading, which manages to capture, at least partially, some of the sense of menace from Lambs. Hopkins certainly does his best work here, compelling as the calm, controlled, yet utterly deadly beast constantly on the lookout for threats to his freedom. Equally good in this part is Giancarlo Giannini as the policeman Pazzi. Pazzi is, perhaps, the one sympathetic character in the whole film an essentially good man, increasingly tempted into doing the wrong thing by money and greed. His battle of wits with Lecter, as he attempts to identify and capture him, is really quite tense and is probably the only part of the film where there is a spark of chemistry between the protagonists. Sadly, this part of the film only lasts about an hour before the action moves back to America and Starlings attempts to find Lecter. Its ironic that the Lecter-Starling scenes were what made Lambs so compulsive. Here they are the scenes that let the film down. Part of the problem is, as suggested above, Moore fails to convince as Starling and there is no chemistry between the leads. Another problem is that the relationship has changed and is written as a more overtly sexual one, which sits uneasily with the film and the characters generally. In Lambs, the relationship was deliberately ambiguous whilst there was undoubtedly a certain sexual element, this was very much underplayed. Here, however, Lecter simply comes across as a dirty of man who wants to have his wicked way with Starling, but is too much of a gentleman to quite dare to do it. This element further unbalances the relationship and makes it far less believable. After the reasonably tense first part, the second half also drops any pretence of being a psychological thriller. Instead, it goes down the silly, lurid route, with plotlines involving man-eating pigs and unusual dinner parties. From here, things degenerate into a ridiculous mess, destroying any sense of atmosphere or credibility the first part managed to build up. Hopkins, in particular, looks a little uncomfortable with the material and is clearly looking for something meatier (ahem!) to sink his teeth into. There is even a part (the trek across town searching for Lecter), which feels dreadfully like filler - as if it was put in simply because the film wasnt substantial enough, as it stood. The film is also a lot more bloody and violent than Lambs, which again is not an improvement for the better. Whereas previously, the violence was limited and subdued (and so more shocking when it happened), here the violence is right up on screen. This doesnt do the film any favours and may put off more squeamish viewers. Finally, theres Ridley Scotts direction. I always felt that Scott was a strange choice for this film, and so it proved. One of the reasons why Lambs was so successful was because director Jonathan Demme kept the cameras tight and simple, producing a very effective, claustrophobic atmosphere. Here, however, Scott feels the need to introduce his trademark flashy visuals, along with several unnecessary and distracting effects, such as slo-mos, jump cuts and flashbacks. Its meant to be atmospheric, but ends up being simply annoying and takes away what little sense of tension the film has managed to build. Its noticeable that the bulk of these effects come in the second part of the film almost as if they are trying to deflect attention away from the weak storyline by distracting the viewer with effects. Conclusion ------------------- Hannibal isnt even close to being in the same league as Lambs. Whilst the first part makes a reasonable stab at providing a tense (semi)-psychological film, it never reaches the same heights as Lambs. Crippled by a lack of chemistry between Moore and Hopkins and an overly lurid script, this is a disappointing conclusion to Hopkins Lecter trilogy*. * I Know Red Dragon was made after Hannibal and so, technically, this is the last of Hopkins outings as Lecter, but Im taking the films in chronological order of the events they portray! Basic Information ------------------------- Hannibal 2001 Director: Ridley Scott Running time: approx. 131 minutes Certificate: 18 Trivia --------- Gillian Anderson was considered for the role of Starling, but her X-Files contract forbade her from playing another FBI agent.
Yes, he's back ... and he's still hungry. Hannibal is set 10 years after The Silence of the Lambs, as 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 realise 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 a build-up to the 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 of the Lambs so amazing was their interaction. When they do connect it's quite thrilling but it's unfortunately too little too late.
This film truly is a compliment to it prequel ‘silence of the lambs’ and if you think it couldn’t be that good again especially with a new Clarice (Julianne Moore) replacing Jodie Foster) then you would be right – it doesn’t quite have the intense thrills as silence of the lambs but it certainly is a good film…. Cannibal Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) is back, ten years after escaping from a Tennessee courthouse, leaving a string of mutilated bodies in his wake. After taking over as the head of a library from the now mysteriously absent predecessor, Lector finds himself living in Florence. That is until a botched FBI raid lead by agent "Clarice Starling" (Julianne Moore) leaves his former "student" in quite a bit of hot water. Put back on the case after interest is expressed by Hannibal's one surviving victim, millionaire Mason Verger (Gary Oldman), "Clarice" finds herself a pawn in an elaborate torture scheme. The wheelchair bound and faceless Verger (Dr. Lecter drugged him with PCP and "suggested" he peel his own face off with a piece of glass) plans to capture Hannibal with the intentions of feeding him alive to his specially bread, "man eating" Pigs. Across the pond we follow the over extended inspector Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini) making a foolhardy attempt at trying to capture Lecter himself for Verger's three million dollar ransom. But as the sad eyed detective is about to learn you don't mess with Hannibal the cannibal and live to tell about it. Meanwhile "Clarice" is keeping taps on Pazzi's bounty hunting and while unable to save the man from his own greed, she finds Hannibal coming to America to pay her a visit, and right into Verger's hands. I will not reveal the ending to those who have not seen this film but I will tell you that although the plot is not as good as silence of the lambs the ending is much better and the big gore scene (in silence of the lambs being the part where lector wears the skin of the guard and hangs him up) is much more gruesome and involves Ray Liotta’s Brain. Those of you who have seen it will know what I mean. Anthony Hopkins is amazing, as always he has certainly hung on to how he believes Hannibal should be in a film that is more centred around him than the first film was. He is just as disgusting and yet sweetly and silently adoring Clarice all the way through. Julianne Moore is excellent and I would probably say she is a better actress than Jodie Foster ever could be but Jodie gave Clarice her personality and mannerisms in Silence of the Lambs so when Julianne Moore tried to make Clarice her own it didn't quite work. Hopefully she will have another Hannibal film in the future to prove herself in. Watch this Film!
... in which the glorification of cruelty and gore become all, the subtleties of plot disappear and something much more evil than Lecter assaults our senses... The Silence of the Lambs - for some reason, that book and film gripped the senses like few others had done previously, appealing to our deepest senses of loathing and disgust by giving us the most abominable of all villains, one who revelled in the darkest tabooes, yet did so with such impeccable taste, style and icy cool that we could not fail to be fascinated with a grim, inexplicable bloodlust. Hannibal Lecter - the most evil man alive, all the more reprehensible because of the chill lack of emotion and enjoyment which he brought to his vocation. He seemed to do these things because he had to, and they were logical extensions of his life, rather than because he wanted to. Somehow, the film ended with us hoping against hope that Lecter would continue with his blood lust, his insatiable pursuit of fear. It was not the flawed, vulnerable, corrupt forces of good which were our heroes, but the abominable monster of the night, the invincible demon who at any time threatened to gobble you down whole, leaving only the nails behind to remind you. The film relied for its popularity and watchability on the dangerous, sinister relationship between Lecter and his fear filled, but very committed quarry, the troubled FBI officer, Clarice Starling. The playing and relationship of Sir Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster made that film and excited our senses. They were so very believable, in their twin images and reflections of a single personality, needing each other and yet ever so slightly repelled by the flaws each saw in the other. After the awesome horror which was Lambs, with Lecter's eventual escape from the arms of the law after assisting Starling to capture the real villain of the piece, Buffalo Bill, any sequel was bound to be less than universally revered. And s o it is with Hannibal, the 2001 follow up, which sees the world's favourite cannibal as the object of the hunt, ten years a fugitive. In brief, Mason Verger (played unrecognisably by the real Prince of Darkness, Gary Oldman) is the sole victim of Lecter who was left alive, but paid a terrible price, being left horribly disfigured and in a wheelchair, with his life's work the pursuit of revenge. He attempts to manipulate Starling (now played by Julianne Moore) in his hunt, and has little compunction in conniving with the seedy FBI chief Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta) to use Starling and leave her career in tatters so she is even more vulnerable and easy to use as live bait for Lecter. The entire story revolves around the manhunt and the twin evil peaks of Verger and Lecter, and we are strangely encouraged to sympathise with the vile, but sympathetically one dimensional, Lecter and pray that he gets the better of Hannibal's real villain, Verger, and his partner in duplicity, Krendler. There ain't really much more to this whole black tale than that, and in reality what we have is a bloodthirsty celebration of gore and loathing. From start to finish, we are spared nothing in this pursuit of the reprehensible, with dogs and pigs consuming human flesh, a man eating his own brain and the disembowelling and hanging of one victim. Such gratuitous and vivid pleasure at violence and horror for its own sake is not entirely healthy, and the subtler shades of the first film are dispensed with absolutely. There is no psychological horror and loathing here, just the physical sort, where only the very basest actions will do. Jonathan Demme and Jodie Foster were well advised to excuse themselves from proceedings. Ridley Scott has crafted a beautifully horrific film, but seems to revel in the blood for its own sake, while Julianne Moore is too self assured and strong to replace Foster in our mind's eye. The Lecter-Starling rela tionship is only now the stage on which our story is set, and relegated to only a tool with which to shape our story. It is odd that Hopkins agreed to appear, but Hannibal would be nothing without his genuinely chilling presence and cool rejection of all human weaknesses. There is little depth or true substance here, and Hopkins seems to have succumbed to playing to the lowest common denominator, giving the seething millions what they really want. The gore in Hannibal is genuinely more than the viewer can really tolerate, or at least this viewer, and was all the more unpleasant because it seems only have been thrown in to titillate. I could have excused it if there was a need for it, or if there had been even the semblance of a genuinely compelling story, but this film is nothing but an excuse for stitching together a few snuff movie shots. I could have done without it, and I assure you that so could you.
Hello again, I've finally come out of hiding to write another opinion. This time on the hit movie Hannibal. Wrote by the fantastic Thomas Harris who also wrote The silence of the lambs, the film was brought to life by Ridley Scott with the help of A list actors such as Anthony Hopkins, Gary Oldman and Julienne Moore. The story follows on from Silence of the Lambs where a young officer on the hunt for a deranged serial killer asks for help off another deranged serial kiler (figures!). In SOTL the FBI trainee Clarice Starling was played by Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins played the wise but dangerous cannibal Hannibal Lector who trys to help Starling with her search for madman Jame Gumb who kidnaps women and cuts off their skin to make a human outfit for himself. In the next addition 'Hannibal', the film moves towards the capture of Hannibal Lector himself after his escape at the end of SOTL. The difference which can't be missed is that Starling is played by Julienne Moore as Foster supposedly refused due to sickening scenes at the end of the film. Ray Liotta also stars as Starling's nemisis Krendler, and possibly unbeknown to a few, Gary Oldman plays the eccentric wheel chair bound Mason Verger who desperatley wants to get revenge on Dr Hannibal who suggested the peadophile feed his face to his dogs which he happily did. I read 80% of the book before i saw the film which i believe was a mistake as I was then able to pick at the film and notice emissions and mistakes more. One of the first things I noticed was that the book was long and detailed so the beginning seemed quite rushed, as though they tried to squeeze too much in the little time available. The scenes were too short and too many in the beginning though it did pick up and become a little more constant towards the middle. It was also a little confusing too a point that I was glad that I had read the book so i would understand better, an ex ample of this is when the Italian police officer Pazzi was trying to get proof that Dr Fell was Hannibal he enlisted a common theif to try and steal Dr Fell's wallet. The idea was that Dr Fell would notice and grab the thiefs arm and leave a finger print on a bracelet. In the film this isn't explained well enough and it doesn't show where the theif comes from. When Hannibal defeats the evil Verger he seemed to talk Verger's carer into killing him way too easily. I know films have to cut alot and can't feature everything but they may have left too many bits out. Even though it sounds like I didn't enjoy this film I did. I thought i was great and will be a classic for years to come. some scenes were a little sickly and upset a few people, i.e the brain supper, the pigs dinner and Hannibal biting the nurses nose but i think the film may rely on these scenes to make it memorable.